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

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ben Ali: made three speeches to TV before fleeing.

Mubarak: made three speeches to TV before fleeing.

Gaddafi: has made three bizarre and incoherent speeches.

See a pattern?

     Not sure the pattern will hold up. It seems quite obvious that this dictator doesn't have his ducks in a row, so it's really anyone's guess what will happen.

[Associate Justice PiT]

New BBC headline: Libya protests: Gaddafi says 'all my people love me'

     The protestors are not from real Libya, you see.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Look at the 8:20 AM entry. It seems that government forces launched another counter-offensive, albeit without success. Ra's Lanuf has seen heavy renewed fighting.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thomas Paine FTW.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So they're saying the rebels have taken back Brega. Think it's true? It seems like the main source for this are the rebels (Al Jazeera is only claiming that "sources tell [them]"), who I wouldn't particularly trust, but at least they seem to have a better track record than the government, which is about as trustworthy as Hamilton.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Russia's instated a travel ban on Qadaffi & his closest associates.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The way the West has dealt with this is disgusting and will cost us dear for generations to come. Once again we have signalled to those in the region that we indeed are the enemy and that the secular opposition is incapable of ending dictatorships in most of the Middle-East. I fully expect thousands to turn towards radical islamism across the region.

People who think there was any danger of the islamists taking over in Lybia don't know their stuff. If we're unlucky they will be the ones taking over when the Qaddafi regime falls in 10-20 years or when revolution comes to the Arab peninsula though, because we failed the Arab people this time round. 

Good lord, don't you think this smacks of 'White Man's Burden'?

When the Arab League invites a NATO intervention, the scenario's somewhat different.

     Though the question is, does the Arab League have any more right to interfere with Lybia's internal affairs than the next folks? Just because they're not white, doesn't mean that their actions are anything other than being international policemen.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't such a bad thing, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There's also been a report that two fighter jets have defected to the rebels.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

How's my suggestion dubious? Everybody knows Qadaffi will kill thousands after this. Heck, his own son has suggested so himself.

     Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the suggestion of a no-fly zone, which seems to me a rather inefficient way of helping the rebels if that's what our goal is. You responded to my post initially rather than the other way around.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

Gaddafi's main advantage right now is that he has air power and can bomb the crap out of rebel positions with near impunity. Short of giving them fighter jets in sufficient number to fight off the bombers you won't really solve the problem this way because it would require us to give up some of our most expensive equipment as well as require us to give rebels a minimum of months of training that it doesn't look like they have in order to use that equipment effectively. Just giving them guns might help them, but without the power to control the air the rebels would still be at a significant disadvantage. Also, the disorganized nature of the rebel forces makes it hard to maintain control of weapons and there is a legitimate worry that weapons currently in rebel hands may end up on the black market after the war is over.

A no-fly zone doesn't require us to set one foot in Libya, it just takes away Gaddafi's big advantage. The rebels have shown that they are able to fight battles on the ground, so it would be a significant gain for them to not have to worry about fighting enemies in the air.

     My issue is that I'm unclear on how a no-fly zone would work, exactly. When I hear about it I think of ships firing missiles at any military planes that might be launched from Libyan soil, but I surmise that it is something not so primitive in its implementation.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So the no-fly zone is much more than just a no-fly zone, eh?

[Associate Justice PiT]

    So the no-fly zone is much more than just a no-fly zone, eh?

Yes, the UN resolution calls for much more than a no fly zone.  Which is why it's stupid that some in the media are simply calling it a no fly zone.  It's more  like a "no fly zone" + "no attack cities zone".

     Indeed. A couple of my acquaintances have been expressing anger at attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, since that obviously does not fall under the auspices of a no-fly zone. So it goes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's been reported that Sirte has fallen without much resistance, and that a column of military vehicles fled westwards. Don't know what to make of this, given that both sides aren't very truthful.

     Given Sirt's status as Qaddafi's hometown & a fairly important point of defense for him, I doubt that it fell that easily. Both sides have lied plenty in this conflict, & I am reticent to believe anything not corroborated by foreign media.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's been reported that Sirte has fallen without much resistance, and that a column of military vehicles fled westwards. Don't know what to make of this, given that both sides aren't very truthful.

     Given Sirt's status as Qaddafi's hometown & a fairly important point of defense for him, I doubt that it fell that easily. Both sides have lied plenty in this conflict, & I am reticent to believe anything not corroborated by foreign media.

True; however, Sirte was primarily a Qaddafi fortress due to the large loyalist military presence there early on, not necessarily due to much sympathy for him. We'll see.

     Some people have referred to this as largely a tribal conflict. If they're correct, than the people of Sirt should be very strongly pro-Qaddafi, since they are typically of his own tribe. The fighting over this city might serve as a test of that hypothesis.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.

No, it's not outsmarting. Russia and China didn't hinder this operation and the Coalition violated the UN mandate. That Gadhaffi is still winning means that either that the operation is carried out incompetently or that the rebels have far less support than previously thought and that they prefer the Coalition to do all their work for them. The second is more likely and it doesn't speak well of those who decided supporting the rebels was a good idea.

     It suggests that we jumped into the conflict without understanding the local factors at work, which is pretty standard for the west in regards to Muslim nations. Look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, & probably a dozen other countries that I can't recall at the moment to see exactly what I mean.