Democracy is hard, we know, and it doesn't always feel like the right thing, but this is in your best interests, really.

His followers were probably just biding their time so that they could cash in their three cavalry cards and get more armies.

Good for them. Squash the traitors.

I, for one, support the actions of those loyalists. Death to the traitors! Allah Akbar, yo

The worst part in all this is that Gaddafi was a true pan-African leader, embracing all the different tribes and races on that continent. But the rebels are primarily Arabs and have significant disdain for the other tribes in Libya. You'd hope that we could support one side that was doing good things, but it's either brutal dictatorship on the one hand or ethnic cleansing on the other.

We should just wash our hands of that country until they build a working government.

Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

AmorousRedDragon: Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

Andrew Jackson?

AverageAmericanGuy: The worst part in all this is that Gaddafi was a true pan-African leader, embracing all the different tribes and races on that continent. But the rebels are primarily Arabs and have significant disdain for the other tribes in Libya. You'd hope that we could support one side that was doing good things, but it's either brutal dictatorship on the one hand or ethnic cleansing on the other.

We should just wash our hands of that country until they build a working government.

Washes the hands from what? All those men on the ground?

AmorousRedDragon: Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

Um, you didnt take out fark all

AmorousRedDragon: Democracy is hard, we know, and it doesn't always feel like the right thing, but this is in your best interests, really.

Actually Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion would be better examples than the War of 1812.

Yes, democracy is hard and some countries/people just don't seemm to be able to get the hang of it - ie. Russia. That we, as one of the most divese nation's in the world, sort of make it work is nothing short of miracle.

Problem is in places like North Africa, the Balkans, Western Africa, Afghanistan etc they really are not driven so much by a poiltical ideology but by centuries of tribal, clan family and or religious based hatreds. In Albania they still have centuries old blood feuds between families.

For most of them democracy or liberation is shouted as just an excuse to go out an kill members of that different tribe/family/religion. They could care less abou tthe poltlical ideology.

Sure there are probably some college students out there thinking they are fighting for freedom but the rank and file trigger pullers are not fighting for a "Free Libya" in this case but for their indiviudal tribe, family, clan or even city.

For small values of "several", tardmitter.

FTFA: Fighters loyal to Libya's overthrown leader Muammar Gaddafi took control of a town south-east of the capital on Monday, flying their green flags in defiance of the country's fragile new government.

The fightback by Gaddafi supporters defeated in Libya's civil war, though unlikely to spread elsewhere,...

(Emphasis added for the benefit of the hard-of-reading, such as subby, and whoever greened this POS).

AmorousRedDragon: Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

Forget it, he's rolling.

Crosshair: AmorousRedDragon: We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

We deposed their existing government and are working to impose what we want them to have Don't be so stupid as to actually believe that the will of the people will be heard. The US government wants a government that is friendly to the US and to hell with what the people want. The moment the new government doesn't march in lockstep with what the US government perceives, even if it is what the people want, to be what they want, the US government will overthrow them.

It took the west 800 years to get our current form of government implemented. Don't think that we can just install it like a program on a CD wherever we want to see it. People and societies are more complicated than that.

You know if any of that were true NATO would have helped Qaddafi. He had become awfully friendly with the west lately.

Crosshair:
It took the west 800 years to get our current form of government implemented. Don't think that we can just install it like a program on a CD wherever we want to see it. People and societies are more complicated than that.

Yes, format first.

Why can't they just follow Egypt's example?

But Gaddafi is still gone, right?

Mission Accomplished!

I was wondering what happened over there yesterday.

This is what I get for wondering... sorry dudes.

/loyal to what? Daffy is dead.

Hey sounds like a rebellion against authority underway! We should go help those poor people.

The same thing happened in the U.S. during the 2010 elections. It doesn't mean it's here to stay.

/ drtfa

hasty ambush: AmorousRedDragon: Democracy is hard, we know, and it doesn't always feel like the right thing, but this is in your best interests, really.

Actually Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion would be better examples than the War of 1812.

Yes, democracy is hard and some countries/people just don't seemm to be able to get the hang of it - ie. Russia. That we, as one of the most divese nation's in the world, sort of make it work is nothing short of miracle.

Problem is in places like North Africa, the Balkans, Western Africa, Afghanistan etc they really are not driven so much by a poiltical ideology but by centuries of tribal, clan family and or religious based hatreds. In Albania they still have centuries old blood feuds between families.

For most of them democracy or liberation is shouted as just an excuse to go out an kill members of that different tribe/family/religion. They could care less abou tthe poltlical ideology.

Sure there are probably some college students out there thinking they are fighting for freedom but the rank and file trigger pullers are not fighting for a "Free Libya" in this case but for their indiviudal tribe, family, clan or even city.

That's pretty much it. The most brilliant thing our founders did was to acknowledge the importance of religion, acknowledge everybody's right to religion, strongly encourage (individually at least) religious attitudes and morality, and then keep religion out of government and government out of religion.

Happy Hours: It's okay folks. This is just growing pains. The US had its own what with the War of 1812 and that whole pesky Civil War thing. Observe and watch - don't get involved. It's too early to pick sides.

Solid troll?

AverageAmericanGuy: The worst part in all this is that Gaddafi was a true pan-African leader, embracing all the different tribes and races on that continent. But the rebels are primarily Arabs and have significant disdain for the other tribes in Libya. You'd hope that we could support one side that was doing good things, but it's either brutal dictatorship on the one hand or ethnic cleansing on the other.

Gaddafi wanted to be the leader of Pan Africa. It had zip to do with respect for other tribes and cultures.

I'm beginning to think that this is how it felt to live in the empire right before the visigoths sacked Rome

Well it's not like they can put him back in charge, can they?

Let's hope they follow him the rest of the way to his destination.

Halli: Crosshair: AmorousRedDragon: We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

We deposed their existing government and are working to impose what we want them to have Don't be so stupid as to actually believe that the will of the people will be heard. The US government wants a government that is friendly to the US and to hell with what the people want. The moment the new government doesn't march in lockstep with what the US government perceives, even if it is what the people want, to be what they want, the US government will overthrow them.

It took the west 800 years to get our current form of government implemented. Don't think that we can just install it like a program on a CD wherever we want to see it. People and societies are more complicated than that.

You know if any of that were true NATO would have helped Qaddafi. He had become awfully friendly with the west lately.

Not really. He may have abandoned a nuke program that wasn't going anywhere, and helped us torture some folks we labeled terrorists in exchange for our help catching folks he so labeled, but Gaddafi still insisted on doing things his way in Libya, and refused to play ball with the real constituent of Western power; our corporations. Gaddafi persistently refused World Bank and IMF funding for his internal development programs, persistently refused to allow our banks or our engineering firms to have anything to do with Libyan infrastructure projects, and persistently refused to give our oil companies large stakes in Libyan oil fields. That refusal to "play ball" even after his "reform" pissed off a lot of very rich, very influential people who generally consider friendship to the west synonymous with economic acquiescence; particularly in France where many of the coup leaders conveniently happened to be vacationing at the same time a few weeks before the "uprising".

That is, of course, all just circumstantial, but what isn't was NATO's initial choice of targets, or the "Interim Government"'s first order of business. What was the first thing the council did after formation? Start negotiating sweetheart extraction contracts with French, British, and US firms. What was the first thing NATO blew up? It wasn't Gaddafi's tanks, it was a massive water pipeline pumping fresh H2O from a huge aquifer in the southeast to the northwest; a pipeline Western banks wanted to fund and western engineering firms wanted to build but which Gaddafi constructed entirely with African funding and labor (bringing it in on schedule and below budget to boot; won't see western firms do that these days). And what was the first region the Special Forces-led, NATO-backed rebellion focused its attentions? Not in the west or south where most of the dissidents lived, but in the northeastern oil-fields. Funny, that.

Marine1: I was wondering what happened over there yesterday.

This is what I get for wondering... sorry dudes.

/loyal to what? Daffy is dead.

I was about to say... They know he's dead, right?

PanicMan: Well it's not like they can put him back in charge, can they?

Maybe one of his Deadly Viper Female Assassination Squad Members can take over.

hasty ambush: AmorousRedDragon: Democracy is hard, we know, and it doesn't always feel like the right thing, but this is in your best interests, really.

Actually Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion would be better examples than the War of 1812.

Yes, democracy is hard and some countries/people just don't seemm to be able to get the hang of it - ie. Russia. That we, as one of the most divese nation's in the world, sort of make it work is nothing short of miracle.

Problem is in places like North Africa, the Balkans, Western Africa, Afghanistan etc they really are not driven so much by a poiltical ideology but by centuries of tribal, clan family and or religious based hatreds. In Albania they still have centuries old blood feuds between families.

For most of them democracy or liberation is shouted as just an excuse to go out an kill members of that different tribe/family/religion. They could care less abou tthe poltlical ideology.

Sure there are probably some college students out there thinking they are fighting for freedom but the rank and file trigger pullers are not fighting for a "Free Libya" in this case but for their indiviudal tribe, family, clan or even city.

I wouldn't say "hatreds" so much as "identities". The promotion of ethnic self-conception -what we were calling "nationalism" until the 90s- will inevitably lead to conflict between different identities because the entire point of it is self-involvement; nationalism is an wholly egotistical philosophy, concerned only with the good of whichever nationality the believer identifies with. That doesn't mean those conflicts are the primary focus of it, however; the conflicts that rise out of it are incidental side-effects of national chauvinism. To take the Balkan examples, for the Serbs to be Great and dominant (that is, for Serbian nationalism to be served) it was necessary for "Albanians"(i.e. Serbian Muslims), who didn't fit that narrative, to be marginalized, villainized, and driven out, from Serbian lands, from Serbian history, and even from Serbian identity. Similarly, for the Kosovars to be a "proud, independent people" their centuries-long history of being subordinate to whatever political authority held sway in Belgrade had to be broken, and that history of subservience denied.

Seeing this as a story of "tribes and clans killing each other" misses the point. The Tribe and Clan are the traditional root of the state wherever you look to in history. These peoples of the Balkans lived peacefully among each other for three thousand years, first under their various native kings, then the Romans, then the Huns, then Byzantium, then native kings again, then the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans. "Tribe" and "Clan" have nothing to do with it. What changed and what made these people suddenly start fighting each other so violently near the end of the 1800s was the outgrowth of Nationalist political philosophy from European Imperialism. Imperialism fed the racist notion that Europeans were superior to all other humans, which each State -competing among each other for legitimacy as they had been since Charlemagne's death- build upon by insisting on the specific superiority of their own distinct -typically entirely invented- ethnic identity. This theory of ethnic superiority necessitated "ethnic independence"; if your ethnicity (English, French, whatever) was "superior", then obviously it couldn't live as an equal with other ethnicities, but instead needed its own State and territory which it could dominate and exploit for its own benefit. Conflict isn't the goal, it's the tool.

As to places like Libya and Afghanistan, talk about "tribe" and "clan" conflict as a driving force is even further off-base. Society, made up of Tribe and Clan, has long had no problem being subservient to the State in either area, and have long histories stretching back centuries of settling their disputes peaceably, typically via adjudication by the central authority, which was the basic role that legitimated the State in those places in the first instance. In Libya this is a basic, b-flat political conflict between those who benefited from Gaddafi's regime (the people of this village) and those who wanted a bigger cut of the profits from the Libyan state (those who organized the rebellion and run things now). In Afghanistan the conflict is more diverse, but also holds to a simple, comprehensible, not-in-any-way primitive form. The people of the central valleys, who have always benefited from the State regardless of ethnicity, support the creation of one, while those on the periphery, who have only benefited from the State when it equitably balances the interests of all the regions, oppose what they see as a Foreign, Pastun-only imposition, which cares nothing for the equity of treatment they see as the foundation for political legitimacy. Plus, NATO and US forces haven't exactly been picky about who they shoot/bomb as our own military leaders admit, which is more than reason enough to fight them for your typical Afghan patriot.

Iraq seemed to be a pretty straight-forward religious civil war in my view, with the Kurds -more concerned with concentrating the political authority of their nationalist government in the north- mostly staying out of a Sunni-shiate slug-fest. Admittedly there were plenty of foreign spoilers and ambitious men playing for personal advantage, but religious conflict seemed to be the general structure of it. Now, it looks to me like Maliki is simply trying to concentrate as much power and authority in his person as possible, though religious violence persists at a less severe level. But the other two you mention, Libya and Afghanistan, are different animals.

Happy Hours: It's okay folks. This is just growing pains. The US had its own what with the War of 1812 and that whole pesky Civil War thing. Observe and watch - don't get involved. It's too early to pick sides.

I'm pretty sure that promoting the dead guy is like putting Santorum banners on your front lawn.

/Ghandi/Abe Lincoln in 2012! Might as well. The world is going to end anyway.

Heron: it was a massive water pipeline pumping fresh H2O from a huge aquifer in the southeast to the northwest; a pipeline Western banks wanted to fund and western engineering firms wanted to build but which Gaddafi constructed entirely with African funding and labor (bringing it in on schedule and below budget to boot; won't see western firms do that these days). And what was the first region the Special Forces-led, NATO-backed rebellion focused its attentions? Not in the west or south where most of the dissidents lived, but in the northeastern oil-fields. Funny, that.

These are lies.

'We' didn't take out Gadhafi. They did. 'We' just offered air support. Badly-needed and asked-for air support, but air support. We never laid a single boot on the ground.

I'm not really sure what the forces loyal to him think they're trying to accomplish now. Game over. Their guy not only lost, he got dragged out of a sewer pipe and killed. Are they hoping to put him back or something?

Gosling: 'We' didn't take out Gadhafi. They did. 'We' just offered air support. Badly-needed and asked-for air support, but air support. We never laid a single boot on the ground.

I'm not really sure what the forces loyal to him think they're trying to accomplish now. Game over. Their guy not only lost, he got dragged out of a sewer pipe and killed. Are they hoping to put him back or something?

They're hoping to stay alive as long as they can in the face of a Sudan-style genocide.

Gosling: 'We' didn't take out Gadhafi. They did. 'We' just offered air support. Badly-needed and asked-for air support, but air support. We never laid a single boot on the ground.

I'm not really sure what the forces loyal to him think they're trying to accomplish now. Game over. Their guy not only lost, he got dragged out of a sewer pipe and killed. Are they hoping to put him back or something?

They are probably doing this for survival's sake. This is always the issue, what are you going to do with the people who supported the previous regime? Are they going to wait and see if they are all hanged, or have a "truth and reconciliation committee" like South Africa? This is more like a best defense is a good offense type of deal.

Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

Arabs are not fooled, they see our action as yet another oil grab and invasion of another Muslim nation. Which is is perfectly reasonable point of view given the insanity of our past foreign policy. Of course Gaddafi was our ally right up until people started shooting at him.

\Nice work Obama/NATO.

Wow, that's a remarkable revision of history you've got going on there.

F22raptom: AmorousRedDragon: Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

Um, you didnt take out fark all

While that is true, that also means that we (the US) didn't 'come in to impose a system of government upon poeple of foreign countries' which was kinda what was being objected to.

I wonder if they know that he's dead and can't pay them.

Idk

They did rape him with a stick.....so I am not all for the rebels.

AmorousRedDragon: Crosshair: Do you know who else came in to impose a system of government upon people of foreign countries, claiming that it was in their best interests?

We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

Czar Nikolai II was a dictator too. King Louis XVI was hardly elected either. Both of their deaths were well-deserved if examined "in the amber of the moment" with all context removed. You can wiki on what came after them, if you like.

Heron: Halli: Crosshair: AmorousRedDragon: We took out a Dictator... that's the complete opposite of what you just laid out.

We deposed their existing government and are working to impose what we want them to have Don't be so stupid as to actually believe that the will of the people will be heard. The US government wants a government that is friendly to the US and to hell with what the people want. The moment the new government doesn't march in lockstep with what the US government perceives, even if it is what the people want, to be what they want, the US government will overthrow them.

It took the west 800 years to get our current form of government implemented. Don't think that we can just install it like a program on a CD wherever we want to see it. People and societies are more complicated than that.

You know if any of that were true NATO would have helped Qaddafi. He had become awfully friendly with the west lately.

Not really. He may have abandoned a nuke program that wasn't going anywhere, and helped us torture some folks we labeled terrorists in exchange for our help catching folks he so labeled, but Gaddafi still insisted on doing things his way in Libya, and refused to play ball with the real constituent of Western power; our corporations. Gaddafi persistently refused World Bank and IMF funding for his internal development programs, persistently refused to allow our banks or our engineering firms to have anything to do with Libyan infrastructure projects, and persistently refused to give our oil companies large stakes in Libyan oil fields. That refusal to "play ball" even after his "reform" pissed off a lot of very rich, very influential people who generally consider friendship to the west synonymous with economic acquiescence; particularly in France where many of the coup leaders conveniently happened to be vacationing at the same time a few weeks before the "uprising".

That is, of course, all just circumstantial, but what isn't was NATO's initial choice ...

Where do the Qataris fit in this narrative?

I wonder if they are ethnic-cleansy of black subsaharan african descendents of slaves as the guys we supported under orders from Obama.

Gosling: 'We' didn't take out Gadhafi. They did. 'We' just offered air support. Badly-needed and asked-for air support, but air support. We never laid a single boot on the ground.

I'm not really sure what the forces loyal to him think they're trying to accomplish now. Game over. Their guy not only lost, he got dragged out of a sewer pipe and killed. Are they hoping to put him back or something?


Of course the they you are referring to is Al Qaeda.

Half-assed leadership is half-assed

/Locally
// Internationally

If they'd been smart, they'd have taken control of an oil facility and booby trapped it. And then traded the facility for their freedom out of the country along with a bit of money.