Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

I've supported you. What more do you want? That's not oblique. It lines me up.

I've often referred to the Mexican wars and the ethnic cleansing of the aboriginal population on other threads. I try to avoid words like "terrorist" and "evil" because they are judgemental. I've even referred to the NFL and certain types of literature and film as inculcating a violent mindset.

I seem to remember reading something along those lines about the US creating a monster. We seem to keep doing that. One thing about the US is that we have different regimes every 4 to 8 years, so things might be one way in one administration and totally different in the next administration. Probably why so many people in other countries are so interested in US elections. Also, sometimes things have a way of just going wrong and people got to deal with it even if they were the ones who caused it, more so if they were the ones who caused it.

Yeah, we should let other countries run their own countries how they see fit, unless there is gross injustice and/or genocide, then I feel (not attributed to my government ideals or anything) that is the responsibility of countries who can help to do so, unless it turns out those who are being oppressed manage to handle it on their own. Which may be happening right now in Libya.

Speaking of which:



source

updates Libya revolt

Libya: Who is propping up Gaddafi?

Unlike in Egypt or Tunisia, it is not the conventional military that holds the balance of power in Libya.

Instead, it is a murky network of paramilitary brigades, "revolutionary committees" of trusted followers, tribal leaders and imported foreign mercenaries.

The actual Libyan Army is almost symbolic, a weakened and emaciated force of little more than 40,000, poorly armed and poorly trained. It is part of Col Muammar Gaddafi's long-term strategy to eliminate the risk of a military coup, which is how he himself came to power in 1969.

So the defection this month of some elements of the army to the protesters in Benghazi is unlikely to trouble Col Gaddafi. Not only can he do without them, his security apparatus has not hesitated to call in air strikes on their barracks in the rebellious east of the country.

So, who is propping up his regime and allowing it to stay in power while two of its neighbouring leaders have fled amid a massive momentum for regime change throughout the Middle East?

Like many countries in the region, Libya has an extensive, well-resourced and brutal internal security apparatus.

Think East Germany's Stasi or Romania's Securitate pre-1989, where no-one dared criticise the regime in public in case they were reported to the feared secret police, and you can see the similarities.

During my own visits to Libya I have always found it hard to get ordinary people to speak freely on the record to a journalist, as government "minders" are always watching and noting who says what.

Some of Col Gaddafi's own sons have worked in internal security but today, the key figure in Libya's security apparatus, both internal and external, is Gaddafi's brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi.

A hardliner with a thuggish reputation, he is strongly suspected of being the driving force behind the violent suppression of protests, notably in Benghazi and the east of the country.

As long as he keeps advising Gaddafi to tough it out there is little chance of his stepping down.

Libya has a number of "special brigades" answerable not to the army but to Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees.

One of these is believed to be commanded, at least nominally, by one of Col Gaddafi's maverick sons, Hannibal, who clashed recently with Swiss police in Geneva after allegations that he abused two of his servants in a hotel there.

The paramilitaries, sometimes known as the People's Militia, have so far been largely loyal to Col Gaddafi and his close circle known in Arabic as Ahl al-Khaimah - People of the Tent.

If the paramilitaries changed sides and joined the protesters en masse this would seriously undermine Col Gaddafi's ability to survive.

This has been one of the darker and particularly disturbing facets of the Libyan uprising.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Libya-watchers are now speculating whether Col Gaddafi's regime will carry out its own self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war ”
End Quote There are persistent reports that Col Gaddafi's regime has been making extensive use of hired African mercenaries, mostly from the Sahel countries of Chad and Niger, to carry out atrocities against unarmed civilian protesters.

Libyan witnesses say they have been firing from rooftops into crowds of demonstrators, in essence carrying out the orders that many Libyan soldiers have refused to obey.

Col Gaddafi has long fostered close relations with African countries, having turned his back on the Arab world some time ago, and there are an estimated 500,000 African expatriates in Libya out of a total population of six million.

The number of those serving as pro-Gaddafi mercenaries is thought to be quite small but their loyalty to his regime is said to be unquestioned and there are reports of extra flights being laid on to bring in more in recent days.

Libya, like the other Arab revolutionary republics of Yemen and Iraq, is a country where your tribe can help define your loyalties, but in recent years the tribal distinctions have blurred and the country is less tribal now than it was in 1969.

Col Gaddafi himself comes from the Qadhadfa tribe. During his 41 years in power he has appointed many of its members to key positions in his regime, including those for his personal safety.

Just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq and President Saleh has in Yemen, Col Gaddafi has been adept at playing off one tribe against another, ensuring that no one leader risks posing a threat to his regime.

Libya-watchers are now speculating whether Col Gaddafi's regime will carry out its own self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war and deliberately arm the tribes loyal to the regime to put down the protest that has already seen it lose the eastern half of the country.

given that it was Reagan, a lot of cheering i suspect

you don't see the difference between 'condemning' a group / country and offering personal insults to an individual?

But what you forget, outa sight outa mind, revelette, is that you don't know what would have happened had we co-ordinated Westerners not done what we did. Things might have been a great deal worse. You imagine these peoples being like yourself and endowed with all the things you are (write a long book on the subject of what you are endowed with), through no real efforts of your own, and they are not.

I was in a number of these countries many years ago, before you were thought of I hope, and from what I see in the backgrounds of the pictures we are being shown, the rest might well be rubbish, some already proven to be so, they are endowed now with a damn sight more than they were then. You probably wouldn't believe the difference. Nor the gap from them to you now.

It's what Sir Almroth Wright was referring to in the quote I put up recently. I think on this thread. And what he said about your gender's characteristics is something I admire and respect. I often find it delightfully amusing. I love it in short. And I'm in tune with evolution in doing so. Evolution loves it--that's why you dears are like that.

Your gender's normal compassion, and merciful nature, and empathy for the suffering, which brooks no logic or reason or actuarial analysis, might be the only thing holding us men back from murderous activities which obviously leave, given the number of disputes arising from living at close quarters in primitive conditions, a shortage of men and the survivors get the upper hand. Shortages being what they are. They are not needed to produce the next generations anywhere near as much as the women are. Men have reproductive capacity to spare. And then some. Ask any bloke on A2K. It's not infinite but it's as near as makes no difference.

You leak your qualities, which only a real misogynist, and anti-evolutionist, would think were faults, into us and we improve. Then you start calling us names like "new men", who can rock the cradle as good as anyone and likes to participate in the birth pangs by holding a hand and ignoring the potential for trouble which is being initiated.

So it is a mistake to think I am a critic of your approach. We do our best. If anybody can do better they should stand for election and persaude the voters that they can. And more will as they feel there are votes to be had from your approval. It's a slow process and I think we owe our progress to the ladies.

So though you don't know what would have happened with other policies or how to implement them, I support your position. But if you want other countries to handle it on their own you have to allow them to decide what a "gross injustice" is.

Whether you would maintain it with oil at $300 I don't know.

The US creates monsters all the time, Rev. Look at the history. The US has repeatedly overthrown democratically elected governments and installed or installed by default monsters. Time after time after time.

It makes no nevermind to the next administration which dictators are in, unless they are making waves for the American businesses that follow like a pack of rats after a dictator is installed. You didn't see Obama falling all over himself seeking to change any of the US supported dictators, did you?

That's why the Taliban, also the US's guys had to go. They weren't following Washington's line on how they should do business with their own resources.

The latest from today's live blog.

4:14pm GMT: Andrew Sparrow is watching the House of Commons debate on Libya. David Cameron has said that the British government will consider arming the Libyan opposition. The government is trying to make contact with the opposition.

4.08pm: Andrew Sparrow is continuing to blog the Commons Libya debate. Labour's David Winnick just said Britain should stop selling arms to "murderous bastards".

4.07pm: Here is a gallery of Benghazi celebrating its new role as the centre of anti-Gaddafi rebellion.

4.04pm: The Associated Press news agency has a bit more on what David Cameron might have meant by his comments on a no-fly zone over Libya.

David Cameron says Britain is working with its allies on a plan to establish a military no-fly zone over Libya.

Cameron did not say whether that meant that the UK or its allies were moving to ban Libyan aircraft from flying immediately or simply making plans in case the situation there escalated.

But he told British MPs Monday that he did not "in any way" rule out the use of military force.

4:25pm GMT: The White House has suggested Muammar Gaddafi might go into exile, Reuters reports. Barack Obama said on Saturday the Libyan leader ought to leave, but did not spell out how. Today Jay Carney, a spokesman for the White House, said: "Exile is certainly one option for him." He would not discuss whether the US woyuld help facilitate this.

Carney also said the US and its allies were in talks about whether to create a no-fly zone over Libya – which perhaps does not go as far as David Cameron did in the Commons earlier (see 4.21pm).

And he said the United States was "actively reaching out to" opposition groups in the country.

Who would be a Prime Minister eh? As far as I'm concerned you need to be a very strange kind of person to want a job like that. Every choice has to have its own logistics in place. And quick, otherwise you are "slow off the mark". And plan B for if the other side do something unexpected.

Just think what Mr Cameron could be doing with his background.

I'm not dumping on you, Spendi, nor am I seeking any personal support. This ain't about me, at all. I have appreciated your honesty.

I'm merely pointing up how reluctant people are to discuss this issue. Avoiding words like 'terrorist' when the actions are dictionary definitions of the same is addressing the issue in an oblique fashion.

I can't recall. Have you used 'terrorist' to describe the actions of anyone since 9-11?

Avoiding words like 'evil' to describe all manner of egregious brutality towards innocents is addressing the issue in an oblique fashion.

Unless you devolve to a single-minded hater of the US, you'll never pass muster with him.

You're really not very good at discussing the important issues, Lash. You are getting to be quite proficient at 'shoot the messenger' though and you excel at talking tangents.

In fact, you came out like gangbusters on this flowering of democracy thread. The best defence is a good offence, right?

Lash's new moto:Keep jabbering about the inane to avoid a discussion of the germane.

The army in Libya is defecting, and supporting the pro-democracy movement. It's only a matter of time.

Olga's insults are here. She didn't get any more than she gave. Her favorite insult against men who disagree with her or don't answer her as quickly as she'd prefer is coward. I wouldn't mind arguing the point that that word is meant as a slap against masculinity...in league with mild, subtle comments made about her...in response.

One might love the USA and seek to make it better. One might love it more than those who take the line of least resistance. The good things in our lives are spoiled by knowing how they were obtained.

See what I mean about favoring the inane over the germane, Lash.

If you read the thread more carefully ci. you would know the army doesn't matter.

Yes, it does; that means the army will not be shooting at their own people. Where did you learn logic?

Only big-girl's blouses bother about slaps. The rest of think they are goadings.