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

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

AU head: Libya rebels may be killing black workers

Our new buddies

http://news.yahoo.com/au-head-libya-rebels-may-killing-black-workers-153142974.html

Source: The African Union, which is full of dictators bought and paid for by Gaddafi.

Perhaps.....we'll see what other reports come out on it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well they are right in a sense, when you consider the "work" of those black workers is fighting as mercenaries for Gaddafi.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Algeria is now claiming that Gaddafi and his family have fled the country and are with them now: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/29/libya.algeria.gadhafi/

[Paul Kemp]

Who's going to be attending the Algerian Family Reunion Parade?

[Verily]

Algeria is now claiming that Gaddafi and his family have fled the country and are with them now: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/29/libya.algeria.gadhafi/

Not Gaddafi, at least so far. Just his wife and some of his younger kids.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

Also, the Russians (the primary weapons seller to Assad) don't want to lose a major client.

Also, the Syrian opposition doesn't want outside military intervention, whereas the Libyan opposition did.  And the Syrian opposition controls no territory, among other differences....

[Frodo]

Why do I get this feeling that if Obama had done what so many here preferred him to do, (i.e. abandoning the Libyan opposition in Benghazi to their fates at the hand of Gaddhafi's forces), many of those same people would now be slamming him for a humanitarian catastrophe on his watch when he could have saved them?  

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

Also, the Russians (the primary weapons seller to Assad) don't want to lose a major client.

Also, the Syrian opposition doesn't want outside military intervention, whereas the Libyan opposition did.  And the Syrian opposition controls no territory, among other differences....

Actually there are growing calls within the Syrian opposition for NATO intervention.  

[Paul Kemp]

Why do I get this feeling that if Obama had done what so many here preferred him to do, (i.e. abandoning the Libyan opposition in Benghazi to their fates at the hand of Gaddhafi's forces), many of those same people would now be slamming him for a humanitarian catastrophe on his watch when he could have saved them? 

I don't disagree with that. Obama's opposition's argument seems to always be "well he didn't do the opposite."

[Jack1475]

People just do not understand that freedom isn't free.

[Silent Hunter]

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

Also, the Russians (the primary weapons seller to Assad) don't want to lose a major client.

As if their opinion mattered...

Considering they've got a UNSC veto, it does.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting issue coming up, maybe. The NATO bombing is officially justified as a means of protecting civilians (we all know that the real reason is regime change, but let's ignore that for a moment). The new government has issued an ultimatum to Sirte; surrender or we storm you. Sirte is a big place and a lot of civilians will die if that happens (obviously) so to what extent can NATO get away with helping out government forces in taking it?

[Boris]

Who's going to stop NATO from getting away with helping the NTC?  Some people might complain, but the way liberal democracies work is that people forget about this type of thing within a few weeks. And the countries that object will mostly be countries that already opposed NATO intervention in the first place. NATO might as well expedite the process and destroy as many pro-Gaddafi armored vehicles as they possibly can, but I don't see what they could really do if people are fighting house to house with small arms....

[Lief 🗽]

Interesting issue coming up, maybe. The NATO bombing is officially justified as a means of protecting civilians (we all know that the real reason is regime change, but let's ignore that for a moment).

The idea is that regime change is necessary to protect civilians.

[Silent Hunter]

Interesting issue coming up, maybe. The NATO bombing is officially justified as a means of protecting civilians (we all know that the real reason is regime change, but let's ignore that for a moment).

The idea is that regime change is necessary to protect civilians.

Quite - removing Gaddafi is the best way to protect civilians in the long run.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, I know that's the rationale. But, fundamentally, a civilian is a civilian even if they happen to (probably) support the wrong side and even if they (certainly) live somewhere held by said wrong side. A slight sense of disquiet isn't entirely inappropriate, given some of the rhetoric. That's all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I think if there are proven exactions coming from the rebel side, I think the coalition should do what is necessary to stop them. It would be something very stupid for the rebels to do, anyways.

[Foucaulf]

I thought the diplomatic and strategic solution is for NATO to focus airstriking Sirte's weapon depots. Scud missiles are given priority, but the goal is to take as much heavy weaponry out before the rebels strike. It is important to not lose too many rebels in the offensive either.

I did not want my first post in this topic to be marked by the following, but Cameron gave a barf-inducing interview today. Points not covered in that article are in audio form on the BBC's website.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NTC forces have announced that negotiations have failed and they're going to hit Bani Walid. Gaddafi and/or his sons have been rumored to be there at least at some recent point.

[Nhoj]

Now saadi has fled to Niger, so that leaves two or maybe three[Khamis may or may not be dead] of Gaddafis sons left in Libya.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Remind me again........are we better off now?   

[opebo]

Remind me again........are we better off now?   

Nothing ever gets better, GG, but I'm rather enjoying that I've developed something of a reputation as a 'pro-Gaddafiist' here in real life.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Remind me again........are we better off now?   

Nothing ever gets better, GG, but I'm rather enjoying that I've developed something of a reputation as a 'pro-Gaddafiist' here in real life.

I'm not a Ghadffi fan but the U.S. has a long history of putting up with {quasi}dictators and even being in bed with them.......until, of course, they serve no further purpose, like Ghadaffi & Mubarek.  I fear Libya and Egypt will be no better of and neither will we.

[ilikeverin]

Here's a map of the UN vote on letting the NTC take over Libya's seat.  Green is "in favour", red is "against", yellow is "abstain", blue is "absent" (which seems to be a bloc of its own).

[Lief 🗽]

South Africa is pro-Gaddaffi???

[ilikeverin]

South Africa is pro-Gaddaffi???

I had the same reaction.  Botswana stands alone!