Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note how excited yesterday's imperial superpowers are about this. A chance to flex their muscles and prove they're not irrelevant, I suppose?

[bgwah]

Gaddafi is not a legitimate leader in any sense of the word and it's a matter of time before the deadenders and mercs are defeated.

How is Gaddafi not a 'legitimate' leader?  He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

[bgwah]

...He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

bgwah, the link you provided shows Libya to have a very high 'Human Development Index', so it would seem to refute your characterization of my post as 'nonsense'.

I was being sarcastic.

[bgwah]

The goal has never been to merely protect civilians.

Well, the UN sanctioned measures to protect civilians...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not all of them.

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

[bgwah]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

Are the rebels specifically moving into populated areas of the city to avoid attacks from Gadaffi's forces? And more importantly in regards to Gadaffi's brutality, would his forces actually care?

So why don't the rebel forces leave Misrata and fight out in the open?

[bgwah]

So why don't the rebel forces leave Misrata and fight out in the open?

Because they would get slaughtered just like anyone would if they were to fight in open ground against a superior force. After that Gadaffi's forces would just roll right back in and brutally crack down on the populace in order to reassert control. Dying and letting the oppressor continue oppressing would be counterproductive to their goal of getting rid of the oppressor.

The rebels are not using the populace as human shields. In the case of Misrata many of the rebels are people who actually live there. They are trying to defend their homes, their families, and their neighbors against an aggressor. It's not their fault that Gadaffi's forces are firing mortars indiscriminately regardless of their actual positions in the city.

Precisely--the rebels would probably be crushed by Gadaffi if they fought out in the open. Just like Gadaffi's forces would be easily bombed by the coalition if they did the same. Staying inside the cities offers them protection, even if the civilian population suffers as a result. Why we must deny that both sides are doing it irks me.

[bgwah]

Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to obtain support for the invasion of Iraq. I don't recall Obama doing anything quite that awful, and while I don't support intervening in Libya, Obama's actions are far less offensive to me than a full blown invasion would be.

[bgwah]

^I would imagine blue means contested and green means Qaddafi.