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

I recognize that you may hope it evolves into something better over time. However I see nothing in the long record of human history that suggests that is possible. Instead it will remain the cynical tool of the least common denominator, doing harm in the process. It is for that reason that I oppose our approval or acceptance of it. I would certainly never voluntarily accept its jurisdiction over myself or my countrymen.

For some of us the very idea of optimism, hope, idealism etc is not in contradiction to harsh reality but rather a direction we would seek. A utopia is not a place but it can be a goal, changing the world just means changing ourselves to be slightly more humane than we were the day before.

For some of us the very idea of optimism, hope, idealism etc is not in contradiction to harsh reality but rather a direction we would seek. A utopia is not a place but it can be a goal, changing the world just means changing ourselves to be slightly more humane than we were the day before.

wow, what a testy lot we have tonight.

I'm rarely testy, Dys.

You're all hat and no cattle.

You've got out of cattle and you still like to wear cowboy hats.

The US I know would never consider doing such a thing.

George, my concern right now is an extremely urgent situation Libya.
Primarily, what options are available to "the west" to avert an even worse humanitarian crisis in Libya than that which already exists, at the hands of Gaddifi's regime?

The BBC is reporting that Qaddafi’s forces were numerous and well-armed, and had intended to take Brega first and then roll on to Ajdabiya. The less well-armed pro-Benghazi forces nevertheless contained many ex-military and had superior esprit de corps, and reinforcements from Ajdabiya allowed the Brega citizen militia to beat off the attackers.

Aljazeera English reports that people in Brega and Ajdabiya very much want a no-fly zone to be established by the outside world over Libya to remove the threat of air attacks from Tripoli. In contrast, the pan-Arab press outside Libya is extremely critical of the idea of Western intervention in Libya, even where it is virulently anti-Qaddafi.

The attack by pro-Qaddafi forces on Brega underscores the contest between the Tripoli government and the Benghazi rebels over Libya’s petroleum revenues.

Qaddafi’s hopes of surviving and of reconquering the east depend heavily on his access to monetary resources. With many of his assets abroad frozen and his banks closed, and 80% of the petroleum fields and facilities in rebel-held territory, he is not well-positioned for a war of attrition. Hence the attempt to retake Brega quickly.

As in Iraq under the oil embargo of the 1990s, likely gasoline and kerosene will start being simply smuggled by Qaddafi’s forces, to provide him a lifeline. It is not lucrative to smuggle raw crude, so the real question is Qaddafi’s control of refineries. Gasoline, once produced, is easy to transport and has a high value, so it is ‘fungible’– easily exchanged for cash anywhere, and gasoline is increasingly the hope for revenue of both sides. According to the LAT, the Benghazi rebels say that they don’t need the petroleum revenue to function, since the regime had not earlier been spending much of it in their region anyway. But this assertion is mere bravado. If the standoff between east and west Libya continues, they will need to purchase arms on the international market, and will need big money to do so.

Aljazeera English reports that the strength of Qaddafi’s military has been over-estimated. For instance, his jets seem mostly not to be able to fly (sophisticate jets even in the West spend as much as 50% of the time being repaired and serviced on the ground, out of service, and the proportion is likely much, much higher in Tripoli). Only a few planes have flown missions against the rebels.

My view is that some sort of intervention is necessary. But the form of that intervention should not be decided by separate nations, or the EU. Surely there is some common ground, based on urgent human rights concerns, that can be met collectively between the nations which could have an impact on what happens next in Libya?

George, my concern right now is an extremely urgent situation Libya.

This conversation began in response to the list of options detailed in the Independent article I posted this morning:

We became side-tracked by discussing the US decision to choose not become a signatory to the ICC ... whether a united front (including the US) on the ICC would would have strengthened the ICC's influence or not. I still strongly hold to my view that it definitely would, but you have argued for US sovereignty.

So where to from here in this discussion? What real options could the west effectively employ to support the beleaguered people of Libya, to avert a worsening of the humanitarian crisis there? Surely that is our primary concern?

Personally, I can't see that military intervention, of the type that occurred in Iraq, would be of any assistance to them at all. Look at the horrendous statistics of civilian casualties in Iraq, following the invasion. Far more civilians died than those engaged in combat.That sort of intervention just worsened the lot of ordinary Iraqis. It simply added further layers of horror, death, destruction & despair to their lives.

So are there better inventions?
What are they?

My view is that some sort of intervention is necessary. But the form of that intervention should not be decided by separate nations, or the EU. Surely there is some common ground, based on urgent human rights concerns, that can be met collectively between the nations which could have an impact on what happens next in Libya?

Quote:

For some of us the very idea of optimism, hope, idealism etc is not in contradiction to harsh reality but rather a direction we would seek. A utopia is not a place but it can be a goal, changing the world just means changing ourselves to be slightly more humane than we were the day before.

Yes, yes indeed, dys.

If the US should invade like we did in Iraq (for no urgent reasons I might add) then like Iraq we own what happens next.

Cluster Bomb Facts

Cluster munitions severely disrupt the lives and livelihoods of 400 million people worldwide
85 percent of cluster bomb casualties are civilians and 23 percent are children
One cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets (or submunitions) and typically scatters them across an area the size of 2-4 football fields
Bomblets are small, often the size of a 'D' battery or a tennis ball and have a failure rate of up to 30 percent; unexploded bomblets become de facto landmines
At least 75 countries around the world stockpile cluster munitions and 34 are known to have produced more than 210 types of cluster munitions
Cluster bombs impede economic development, restrict access to water and deprive children of safe access to education
Cluster munitions have been used in at least 30 countries and territories
The global stockpile of cluster bomb submunitions totals approximately 4 billion, with a quarter of these in U.S. hands
Unexploded bomblets were responsible for the death of nearly 10% of the U.S. fatalities in the Gulf War
The United States dropped 19 million in Cambodia, 70 million in Vietnam and 208 million in Laos
The U.S. executed over 580,000 bombing missions over Laos, dropping, on average, an entire planeload of bombs every eight minutes, around the clock, for nine years.
The most cluster contaminated areas are in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Kosovo and Vietnam.

http://www.landmines.org/Page.aspx?pid=796

Please call and let us know what its like when you get there.