53
   

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

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2011 07:09 pm
@Ceili,
Very wise of you!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2011 11:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Did you know that the British Agent who tried to establish their primacy with a then emerging Abdul Azzis (Ibn Saud) before WWII was Kim Philby's father? I knew Kim Philby's father and you're no Kim Philby's father, nor are you a Kim Philby!
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 12:00 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Democracy is a cool concept but I wonder if it is the best thing.
Perhaps the answer is (at least for those with mathematical inclinations) that many independent factors, economic, social, and political are involved in what we might call a good life. There are no single variable solutions to any such system.,

True - but there is a single variable providing a linear constraint in any mathematical modeling schema of the thread and as often happens the poet nailed it before any mathematicians or engineers. In past centuries all Arabia was believed cursed because digging for water wells only produced oozing black goop:
Quote:
...He with a crew, whom like ambition joins
With him or under him to tyrannize,
Marching from Eden towards the west, shall find
The plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge
Boils out from under ground, the mouth of Hell...

Many Chinese scholars have interpreted this passage to mean that their country really is the "Middle Kingdom". Perhaps someone who knows Chinese can shed some light on that interpretation, but it seems to correspond to (blind) Milton's geography: http://www.online-literature.com/milton/paradiselost/12/
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 02:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Americans tend to be highly ignorant on such matters.....they assume that freedom of choice, the more choice the better, it what makes the good life and what is wanted by most. This in spite of a slew of scientific evidence that excessive choice demises our quality of life and is considered a burden in practice. Just last week there was a study out the shows that those who have the most choice in mates end up the least mated and the least happily mated.


I think you miss the point of freedom, it is not just a faint hope of a better way of life, (IMO) but merely the freedom of choice no matter the outcome. I still want the freedom of choice even if my choice ends up being the wrong one and I don't imagine I am any different than those over in other countries who long for the freedom to make their choices, mistakes or not; though their idea of freedom might be different than my idea of freedom.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 03:49 pm
@revelette,
Well, it has been a tough day, hasn't it? I have been following several news sources, but haven't gotten real clarity as to what is happening.
Would you agree with this statement: The press seems to support the anti-Gaddafi effort?
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 03:53 pm
Today's news here contains reports of the use of helicopter gun ships (Soviet made) being used by Ghadaffi's forces to aid in repelling rebel forces advancing near his stronghold in Tripoli. Cumulative deaths, possibly in the thousands, are reported.

There has been a good deal of discussion here about the desirability of international intervention to limit the casualties in this struggle and possibly to speed the tyrant Ghadaffi's departure. Representatives of European governments have noted that UN approval would be required before any such intervention - as was done for the establishment of no fly zones in Iraq after Saddam's brutal suppression of a Shia uprising in Basra. Many probably recall their criticisms of the U.S. for its (in their eyes) stretching of the UN resolutions that did indeed cobditionally authorize use of force against Saddam's government.

Unfortunately the UN has not acted, and there appears to be no indication that it will act in any time soon. Even in the unlikely circumstance that initiatives are made, there are likely vetoes in the Security Council for any such proposal.

My question for those who have advocated some form of international intervention are as follows;
==> Who should do it?
==> Is UN preauthorization a necessary prerequisite for lawful action?
==> In the absence of UN action are there any moral responsibilities that bear on other nations observing these events? If so, which nations, and what are their moral obligations?

Much has been made by some here (myself included) about the difficulties associated with enforcing no fly zones. At the same time I also recognize that, in their current precarious situation, it might not take too much to bring about the collapse of Ghadaffi's military forces - a carrier strike on a couple of helo bases would do a lot to reduce the morale and loyalty of his air arm, at least based on past experiences. In general it isn't necessary to absolutely prohibit their air operations - just adding to the perceived risk in their own calculations might well be enough to start them unravelling.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 04:24 pm
@georgeob1,
Ideally a coalition of states including as many Muslim nations as possible, should do it, but ultimately any nation that is capable and holds principles higher than politics should.

UN "authorization"is preferable but not necessary.

Considering the inevitable backlash, internally as well as externally, faced by the nation or nations taking action, I don't believe any are obliged to intervene. Individuals are not morally obliged to put themselves at risk to come to the aid of others, and neither are nations.

If you avoid the risk involved in assisting someone, you will live with your self assessment thereafter.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 04:29 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
Would you agree with this statement: The press seems to support the anti-Gaddafi effort?


Very much so. I think it derives from a deep-seated desire for rebellion but one frustrated in its own setting and thus Libya presents an opportunity to practice it vicariously. There may be more cynical reasons but they are not fit for a forum such as this is.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 04:34 pm
@spendius,
I was surprised to learn, if it is true, that there were 2 million foreign workers in Libya of which only one tenth have so far left. I suppose, it is usual, that most of those workers were remitting part of their wages to their families back home.

Which is to say that Libyan oil has been financing the economy of other countries to an extent all this while.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 05:01 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Which is to say that Libyan oil has been financing the economy of other countries to an extent all this while.
Probably at the cost of educating and training their own people .
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 05:33 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Which is to say that Libyan oil has been financing the economy of other countries to an extent all this while.


An endemic problem throughout the Arab world. They import ex pats to do the work for them. In Saudi Arabia such folks comprise about 25% of the total population. All this is done at their own initiative and expense. As Ionis said, the education and economic development of their own people is the casualty here. To some degree this may be part of the implicit bargain between authoritarian, exploitive rulers and their subject populations. Stimulating economic development and individual initiative could ultimately unleash forces that might threaten an authoritarian regime. Even in countries as wealthy as Saudi Arabia, they don't have the wealth to continue this much longer.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 09:12 am
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
Well, it has been a tough day, hasn't it? I have been following several news sources, but haven't gotten real clarity as to what is happening.
Would you agree with this statement: The press seems to support the anti-Gaddafi effort?


I don't watch all the news nor read all popular news sites regularly. I am following the ME protest and crises and the latest is in Libya and I seek out those stories which write about that. It is hard to take TV news seriously on the subject when they report deaths in Libya one second and the next report Sheen and witches in Salem brewing up spells against him. (saw that on morning joe this morning, mostly just keep it on the mornings when I wake up) I admit the sources that I have been reading favor anti-Gadhafi efforts. For good reasons in my opinion.

Libyan warplanes strike rebels at oil port

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/c/be/cbe4159c68dd24ee5fea202c73ec841e.jpeg

Quote:
RAS LANOUF, Libya – Libyan warplanes launched fresh airstrikes on rebel positions around a key oil port Monday, trying to block the opposition fighters from advancing toward Moammar Gadhafi's stronghold in the capital, Tripoli.

Rebels in the area said they can take on Gadhafi's elite ground forces, but are outgunned if he uses his air power.

"We don't want a foreign military intervention, but we do want a no-fly zone," said rebel fighter Ali Suleiman. He added that the rebels can take on "the rockets and the tanks, but not Gadhafi's air force."

Libya appears to be sliding toward a civil war that could drag out for weeks, or even months, as rebels try to oust Gadhafi after 41 years. Resorting to heavy use of air attacks signaled the regime's concern that it needed to check the advance of the rebel force toward Sirte — Gadhafi's hometown and stronghold.

Anti-Gadhafi forces would get a massive morale boost if they captured Sirte, and it would clear a major obstacle on the march toward the gates of Tripoli.

There were no casualties in Monday's airstrike on Ras Lanouf, which came one day after pro-regime forces pounded opposition fighters with helicopter gunships, artillery and rockets to stop the rebels' rapid advance toward Tripoli.

Mohamad Samir, an army colonel fighting with the rebels, said his forces are expecting reinforcements from the east.

The uprising against Gadhafi, which began Feb. 15, is already longer and much bloodier than the relatively quick revolts that overthrew the longtime authoritarian leaders of neighboring Egypt and Tunisia.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 09:40 am
.25pm: William Hague, the foreign secretary, is expected to speak about the failed SAS mission to Libya at 3.30pm. Hague has come under pressure today after it emerged he had personally approved the operation. On the politics live blog, my colleague Andrew Sparrow provides the context to the statement Hague will read in the House of Commons:

He's going to have to explain why he sent an MI6/SAS mission into Libya by helicopter at night to get in touch with the rebels when it appears he could have just called them up to arrange an appointment.

3.21pm: The Guardian's Chris McGreal is in Benghazi, where he says there is "mystification" from anti-Gaddafi forces over Britain's botched SAS mission to Libya.

Chris has been speaking to the provisional transitional National Council of Libya – the anti-Gaddafi forces council – about the mission and about the council's demands.

"There's general mystification," Chris says. "The first thing is that they suggest that the British forces and diplomats just didn't seem to know who they were looking for. They didn't seem to know who was in charge in Benghazi, and they portray them as really searching out anyone they could find to talk to.

"This left the members of the [National Council of Libya] who were told about these British officials arriving mystified as to what their intent was and at least according to the ones I've spoken to no formal offers or approaches were made ... this seem to have frustrated the new Libyan leadership, not least because it was done in what they describe as an indefensible way – an illegal way."

3:08pm: Libyan troops loyal to Muammar Gaddafi are rounding up black African migrants to force them to fight anti-Gaddafi rebels, Reuters is reporting.

The news agency said it had spoken to several young African men who have fled to Tunisia. The men told reporters at the Ras Jdir refugee camp near the Tunisia-Libya border that they were raided in their homes by soldiers, beaten and robbed of their savings and identity papers, then detained and finally offered money to take up arms for the state.

Those who refused were told they would never leave, said Fergo Fevomoye, a 23-year-old who crossed the border on Sunday.

"They will give you a gun and train you like a soldier. Then you fight the war of Libya. As I am talking to you now there is many blacks in training who say they are going to fight this war. They have prized [paid] them with lots of money."

Fevomoye said Africans who are first intimidated and stripped of everything were then offered 250 Libyan dinars ($200) to train as fighters.

"They said I should take money and fight. They would give me 250 dinars. I said No. When I told them No they told me I would not go anywhere," he told Reuters.

The Libyan governemnt has denied using foreign nationals to fight the rebels, saying instead that dark-skinned Libyans serving in its security forces had been mistaken for black African mercenaries.



source
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 10:57 am
@revelette,
I haven't seen any news of the British operation as yet here (though I generally don't closely follow TV news reports). Hard to blame them for any failure to understand what they (or anyone) is dealing with in Libya - I doubt that anyone really knows the real situation. It is easier to be a critic than to act constructively.

We appear now to be seeing at least a partial reversal of former political positions in the US and perhaps other places - folks who sometimes bitterly (though usually after the fact) opposed the Iraqi intervention appear to be now calling for intervention in Lybia, and vice versa.

It seems clear that we (at least based on public information) don't really understand the identity and goals of the principal actors who may be emerging as leaders of the Libyan rebellion, or, as a result, the likely character of what may follow a rebel victory.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 11:12 am
@georgeob1,
I think, the botched mission of the British SBS as well as that of Dutch navy ... proves what George said, when he doubted that anyone really knows the real situation.
From today's Independent: "Diplomatic sources said the British team were under the impression that they had received the agreement of the provisional government recently set up in Benghazi. However, that government does not yet have a coherent structure and it is difficult to understand who would have had the power to authorise the entry of foreign troops – a contentious subject among the rebels." (The Independent, Monday 7 March, 2011, page 5: 'British special forces team released after botched mission')
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 11:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Hague had already established phone contact with rebel leaders, including former interior minister Abdul Fattah Younis, raising questions as to why the British needed to operate in such a cloak and dagger way.

Senior officials had said on Friday that a diplomatic taskforce would go to Benghazi, the capital of the rebels, in due course. But in reality an advance guard had already been sent.

In an earlier statement Hague said: "The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition. They experienced difficulties."

Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to Libya, described it as a farce.

Richard Northern, the current British ambassador to Libya, was called by rebels to explain what the group was doing in eastern Libya.


Northern quit Libya with the rest of the UK diplomatic team at the height of the fighting in Tripoli.

He spoke to a representative of the former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil – who is now a rebel leader – to explain the men's mission.

A phone call between Northern and Jalil's spokesman was intercepted by the Gaddafi regime and excerpts were played on Libyan state TV on Sunday.

In that phone call Northern did not seem to be aware that the diplomatic mission would arrive by night in helicopters.

The Libyan state TV broadcast claimed to show the UK ambassador speaking to a rebel spokesman.

"They experienced difficulties, which have now been satisfactorily resolved. They have now left," Hague said.

"We continue to press for Gaddafi to step down and we will work with the international community to support the legitimate ambitions of the Libyan people."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/william-hague-approved-botched-libya-mission?intcmp=239

Quote:
5.20pm: Here's an afternoon summary.

• William Hague has said that he takes "full responsibility" for the decision to order the mission that led to MI6 officers and SAS soldiers being detained in Libya. As he made a statement in the Commons on the affair, Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, asked him: "Isn't it clear that this mission was ill-conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed? What are you going to do to restore the reputation of the United Kingdom in relation to foreign policy in the Middle East?" For more details, see 4.38pm.


source
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:07 pm
Perhaps it was ill-conceived, perhaps it was a reasonable, if risky, approach to a dangerous and highly opaque situation. We and the political critics in the UK don't really know.

It is far easier to imagine a desired outcome (communication and coordination with the rebel leadership) than to actually do it in a very cloudy situation in which secure remote communications are not possible; the real makeup & location of the rebel leadership is unknown; and the identity and motives of other actors in the game are not at all clear.

There is a lesson here for those who insist that some amorphous "international community" should suddenly form, reach unanimous agreement, and snap its fingers to make bad things stop happening in Libya.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:17 pm
@georgeob1,
I would think the big 64 thousand dollar question would be whether invasion is justified where the leader of the country defies human rights and continues to kill their own people. How long is the world community supposed to sit it out and wait?
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What I post may cloud the issue even more. In Egypt the protesters sexually abused a CBS female correspondent. Muslims are misogynistic. Gadhafi has promoted women rights and has a female guard regent protecting him.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:33 pm
An interesting article, not sure how I feel about it though. (not saying much I know)

The Washington war drums are beating for the president to strike at Gaddafi – not least because he may yet survive the revolt

(if we are going to, better get some troops and resources out of some of these other places, namely, Iraq and Afghanistan. With the recent civilian causalities in Afghanistan, I think it is past time anyway. Not sure what good it is doing by being there and see much more harm.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 03:28:08