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

[Stranger in a strange land]

Quick question: what is "Nicolae Ceausescu" in Libyan Arabic?

that would truly be awesome, but I don't expect Ghaddafi to be overthrown without a lot of bloodshed, probably even worse than Romania 1989, as anti-regime elements of the army duke it out with pro-regime elements, the security services, and mercenaries.

The Romanian parallel is a good one. Ghaddafi's regime was the most entrenched of the Arab dictatorships, and will therefore require the most extreme action to overthrow. It's probably also the one most independent of foreign support. In 1989, Ceausescu was not only the most repressive of the Warsaw Pact dictators, he was also the one most independent of Moscow, which partly explains why Romania had the most violent revolution of the East European states, and also had by far the most difficult transition to democracy afterward.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This is the one where the west has the most influence. Gadaffi's personal guard who he's obviously going to need are basically nothing more than highly paid mercenaries, Blackwater-type thugs. And their payment comes from offshore bank accounts. If Gadaffi's assets were frozen, no more payment, and he's done. And if he cracks down bloodily, that becomes far more likely to happen. Guy is really stuck.

Back when he was a Soviet ally, his bodyguards were East Germans. In recent years, Gadaffi has become notorious for traveling with a coterie of attractive female bodyguards. One wonders how they'll fare in all of this. There have been lots of reports that the regime is using African mercenaries.

[Stranger in a strange land]

He's clearly done now, the point being how long will it take, and what will it take. For the flee, not sure he would have a lot of choices of destination with what just happened.

I think he's burned too many bridges for the Saudis to accept him.  At this point, he's likely limited to Zimbabwe, and even then it likely wouldn't be something publicly acknowledged.

North Korea, Iran, and Uzbekistan are also possibilities. Saudi Arabia is definitely off the table as Ghaddafi's intelligence service attempted to assassinate King (then Crown Prince) Abdullah as recently as 2003.

EDIT: "Muammar al-Gaddafi to no longer be leader of Libya before midnight ET 31 Dec 2011 " is now trading at 84% on Intrade.

[Stranger in a strange land]

We'll be talking about this "speech" in 100 years, folks.

I agree, it could reach an historical level.

Also, about news, a France2 (2nd French TV channel) journalists team has apparently been the 1st journalists to enter in Libya, by the east, monarchy flags everywhere from the Egyptian border to Tobruk, and Tobruk is apparently fallen in the hands of protesters.

You mean no more mono-green flag once democracy comes? I think I support Gaddafi now.

monochromatic flags = fail

[Stranger in a strange land]

Gaddafi has already lost several cities and seems to have no means of getting them back. The Minister of Interior is variously reported as having joined the opposition or having been assassinated. Gaddafi's rambling speech may have strengthened the resolve of the protesters, as it sent the message they will be killed even if they back down. The death toll will almost certainly be in the thousands before all this is over.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Gaddafi is out, obviously. Kind of tragicomical how the international community only joins the bandwagon once it is 100% clear that the Libyan people has done the job on their own.

Well, if he pulls through, we'd still need his oil, wouldn't we?

He's not in control of the oilfields any more, so we can throw him under a bus.

He still controls the oil fields in the west. The seeds are set for a long term civil war unless there are more defections and Gaddafi's side collapses. Which, hopefully is not too far away. However, if anyone is able to control the country after this is anyone's guess. Libya is really in trouble.

He controls the fields but has no way to sell the oil (as all of the pipelines are shut down, and he has no way to get the oil to ports; the oil ports are all controlled by the opposition). This is not going to be a long civil war. Gaddafi has no supporters, just mercenaries and his family, and the mercenaries will not stick around once he can't pay them (which will happen very soon if it isn't happening already). Even if he does, there's no way he can get supplies in and out of Tripoli, and he's continuing to lose control of more and more places closer and closer to the city. This is all but over.

Yeah, my point. He might technically control a couple of oilfields, but sanctions aside, he has no way of selling it to other countries. Most of the oilfields are either controlled by the rebels, or couldn't be useful on the international markets.

Also, the foreign workers which the Libyan oil industry depends on have almost all fled, so the oil fields can't produce very much.

[Stranger in a strange land]

If I were to venture such an observation, it would be based on the many years of reliable oil-delivery the gentleman has to his credit, and the fact that however wonderful the bearded 'democracy activists' or rebel-freedom-fighters may be, they are a complete unknown regarding the oils.

They have no choice but to keep delivering the oils, even if they don't want to. What else are they going to do with it, drink it?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Also the Obama-haters who opposed NATO intervention are looking pretty silly now.

yes, Qaddafi was a tyrant who deserved to die, but he was a secular tyrant...what will replace him will be much worse.  if you dont understand this, then you are very naive about the world.

No he wasn't. He banned alcohol, sponsored Islamist terror groups, sponsored Muslim organizations throughout Africa, and changed the flag to the color of Islam for God's sake. He adhered to a weird synthesis of Islamism and Socialism which was in vogue in the 60s & 70s, as opposed to the Salafism which is popular today, but to say he was a secular dictator who was useful because he kept the Islamists in check isn't really accurate.

Can't wait for JJ to post in this thread!

Also the Obama-haters who opposed NATO intervention are looking pretty silly now.

No we dont. If Libya doesnt get a democracy, it's Obama's fault.

*facepalm*