• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Meanwhile in Libya...

onedreamer said:
rebellions in those countries are mostly ethnic, your comparison is way off. The USA also have had a good propension in killing ethnic minorities in America, and the same goes for Europe, Africa and the rest of Asia.
Click to expand...

China's famine killing 30+ million people and Stalin eliminating million of his enemies (and enemies of the state) have very little to do with them being minorities.
 
if famine is a synonim of rebellion then your reply makes sense.
 
innonimatu said:
What, the complete confusion going on about the situation is not true? The unreliable news are not true? Do go ahead and post better news and reliable sources on what is going on, I'm rather curious abut it! Else we can just wait and see.
Click to expand...

I have them but they are italian. Anyways there are videos and pics from cell phones and other modern day digital devices, bear in mind that frontiers are patrolled by men of the regime that will do everything to prevent these to slip past them, we know this by the refugees that escaped Lybia towards Tunisia from the first days of the conflict. We also have reportages of western TVs, especially Italian, French and German. I'm sorry if you can't find a hollywood movie about it or something in your language yet but there are informations out and they are reliable, you cannot claim to be at the same time uniformed on what's going on and informed that there are no reliable news.
 
Well it's unsurprising a rebel base right next to the center of power was quickly overrun.

Now, as for the east/west border... that's what we should watch.
 
Meanwhile in Libya, Gaddafi made a new song.

Link to video.

Seriously I have a friend, his dad works in Libya, he was evacuated a few days ago, he says its chaos, and some Bosnian citizens were injured
 
If a majority of the military sides with Gadhafi, and there is a rebel military opposing him, isn't it a civil war now? It's a little one-sided, but that's what it is right? The media has painted it as, "Gadhafi is bombing his own people," but from other sources as, "Gadhafi's forces are attacking targets in opposition-held towns."

I believe it can still be okay to intervene, but the wording is important. There's a big difference to "a war between two armed sides over ideals," and, "merciless killing of peaceful protesters."
 
10K+ dead in Libya uprising

The informed sources of the International Criminal Court, on Wednesday night, reported on the continuation of massacre of Libyan people by Muammar Gaddafi's military forces, putting the death toll in recent days at 10,000 people.
Click to expand...
Still a little skeptical, but wow if true.
 
onedreamer said:
I have them but they are italian. Anyways there are videos and pics from cell phones and other modern day digital devices, bear in mind that frontiers are patrolled by men of the regime that will do everything to prevent these to slip past them, we know this by the refugees that escaped Lybia towards Tunisia from the first days of the conflict. We also have reportages of western TVs, especially Italian, French and German. I'm sorry if you can't find a hollywood movie about it or something in your language yet but there are informations out and they are reliable, you cannot claim to be at the same time uniformed on what's going on and informed that there are no reliable news.
Click to expand...

Oh, thanks, I had no idea, I get all my news from Hollywood movies! :rolleyes:
I have my own favorite sources, and those tell me that the rebels fight like a disorganized rabble, and that the reported dead have so far died mostly in the fighting. With "friendly fire" a major cause of casualties among the rebels. Who also managed to blow up much of their ammunition in Benghazi, apparently. They'll soon run out of ammunition, even if not of young fools wanting to die. Unless (extremely unlikely, as I've been saying - other governments actually have cause for contentment with this civil war in Libya) there is some foreign invasion, they're going to lose their war.

These news we get easily. What we don't get are the political motives behind these recent evens, or the list of forces available to each side. We don't know exactly how Libya is divided, only have some vague news about tribal divisions and "Sahara fighters" airlifted by the government (not to mention the "mercenaries"), plus news about either defections of military units who now obey another government in Benghazi, contradicted by other news about how that new government (?) has no trained troops available, only militias, and by news about attacks on army barracks there in the beginning of the whole thing. Nor do we know the foreign connections on which either side may draw to continue the war: how many politicians has Qaddafi bought abroad so far (how many are compromised for having taken money from him), what governments are supplying him with the alleged mercenaries and ammunition, what governments may support the rebels rather than allow a civil ware drag on in Libya?

I'm not joining the choir clamoring for an intervention in Libya because of all these unknowns. Qaddafi may be worse and his government been the first shooting, but both now went for civil war rather than back off. Which is sheer folly, because getting a country in civil war back together through war to the bitter end will kill hundreds of thousands and wreck the country's infrastructure. As I also said, in a worst case another Somalia or Afghanistan in the making... but here the government will probably win. Using Hama-style war methods from now on. It would be better for Libya to be rid of Qaddafi and his family, but starting a civil war which cannot be won is not the way to do it. For the rebels to emerge victorious... they'll have to become as ruthless, or even more, than the government.

The best intervention would be a total embargo on ammunition. The sooner one side runs out of it, the sooner it'll end. And yes, I do know that the government will most likely win in that case. The government has the money and foreign connections with arms dealers and other governments. The rebels seem to have no foreign sponsor and no money - that ought to be one point in their favor, they really seem spontaneous, but it isn't. And they seem to have hit the maximum extent of their support - urban populations tend to start losing enthusiasm for rebellions when rebel fighters bring down real warfare on them. And some of the people who defected to the rebel field may well defect back to the government side if they see the tide turning. I have been, and remain, pessimistic about Libya's future.
 
so how come the great enterprise seems stalled ? Not much trouble actually . The rebellion got the East on tribal lines and Greenflag types were careful to tread lightly lest they turn more tribes against them . Not much action initially . It can still be argued that Libyan Air Force is yet to kill anybody . Though the pace seems to be picking up as sides are getting clearer , the need to avoid casualties to avoid dragging in new tribes loses the deterrent effect . The undecided tribes also explain the speed of the Tricolor advance . They would arrive off a town at the edge of effective range and spend ammo and the return fire would be exactly the same . Then the local population would rise and stab the defenders in the back . The defenders would be happy to oblige and retreat , provided they weren't among the one or two killed . The tribe counts not the state . The use of mercenaries , as expendable they are , provided the time before the tribes decided whom they would be supporting for the duration . The tricolor advance stopped cold at a place where the local population was evacuated . They call this disproportioned force . Oh-Kay . The town of Bin Jawad became a village when Greenflags took it back . Oh-Kay . Oh no , Greenflags never took it back because the Tricolors had not liberated it yet . Oooo-Kay . While the Western media talks of the fortress of Sirte laying ahead with its arrays of sophisticated weaponry . One presumes an evil empire must have constructed turbolazer towers to prolong the yoke of tyranny . Poor Tricolors otherwise have anything in the Libyan inventory . Except maybe the SSMs (maybe) and what would be their practicality ? There was this documentary recently about the Maoist guerillas inside India , lacking bullets , they say boom instead of shooting in training . And the only equipment the guys carry are a rifle and an umbrella . They would die of envy of pickups and the anti-aircraft guns the Tricolors fire whenever a tribal elder is set to appear on TV ; everybody will have his 15 rounds of fame . (Andy Warhol , wasn't he ?)

and of course the offer Kaddafi is supposed to have done to step down in return for legal immunity and loot . Right at the time he was getting the upper hand ? The one Tricolors categorically rejected at first and now considering and even fighting over in-between ? No prosecution in Libya but the world is free to do whatever it pleases ? No , it is not some ridiculous idea . Now that the fight has moved to Kaddafi's home tribe , they the fighters are to be shown that their leader had no confidence in them and was thinking of running away . A cool tribal move ! Precision wedge-driving ! Afterall this is some propaganda war . We hear passionate pleas on who is a murderer and who is fighting to save lives . One must avoid being made an example of . And of course ı have the most brilliant solution to the dilemma . Let Western companies to build an autobahn in the desert , out of the populated coastal shoreline , avoiding any possibility of evacuated towns and straight to Trablus . When ı was young , all the books said an infantry force inferior in tech could defeat the defence in urban combat , which was the rising star of literature .One famous occasion when Robert Fisk once met Afghan armed people who thought Russians had invaded London can be linked to the said literature , where a book had an illustration showing the British troops fighting WarPac types behind a two story bus One presumes after the experience of Iraq it feels awkward when there is no shield of civilian population . Neither the sword of civilian population . Hence the Tricolor turnaround .Considering the claims of sniper fire from minarets one can assume there will be rebel artillery next time , to level the place . Which calls for sterilization of the area so that the "massive" artillery columns can not be photographed by the "unsympathetic" media . Hence the 50 km "retreat" . Nobody indeed stopping the Libyans fighting each other .

and my favourite point of interest , planes ... Fitters gloirously fireballed in 1981 are happily bombing a mile off while the victors of that engagement live only on Al -Jazeera news channel . And the discomfort , if one can call it so, of a BBC reporter while mentioning the single known case so far of Libyan accuracy . The only hotel in Ras Lanuf hit by a "big rocket" . ı somehow doubt the utility of the likes of 240 mm Russian rocket bombs . Got to be a missile and what is wrong with the word missile ? Maybe the piece of cake aspect , who knows ? Western media should maybe remind everybody that it is generally accepted that those Su-22s fired missiles and missed 20 years ago !
 
Geoffrey Robertson (UN jurist (and amongst other things, Assange's lawyer)) on how intervention would be legal:
As Colonel Gaddafi, with his army and air force, his tribal supporters and his propaganda machine, begins to counterattack, only one thing is certain. He is a man utterly without mercy. Will the world stand idly by once he starts to deliver on his threat to "fight to the last man and woman" - and, inferentially, to the last child?

The shadow of Iraq invasion illegality has tainted talk of "liberal interventionism" - unfairly, since Bush was no liberal and Blair has wrongly used it as a retrospective excuse. There was no looming humanitarian crisis in Iraq in March 2003, and the coalition of the over-willing (the US, with Britain, Spain and Australia) explicitly ruled out this justification: they claimed an entitlement to circumvent the Security Council because of a convoluted reading of an earlier resolution and a bizarre "Bush lawyer" claim to the right of self-defence against Saddam's imaginary weapons of mass destruction. The lesson of Iraq, '03, is not that countries such as Britain and Australia should never use force against another, but that never again should they do so in breach of international law.

Which begs the big question, when is there a right - or, more importantly, a duty - to use force to relieve a humanitarian nightmare? The UN charter bans "the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state" other than in individual or collective self-defence, or else with Security Council authorisation after the council has determined under Chapter VII of the charter that a threat or a breach of the peace has occurred.

But the problem is that the "big five" each have a Security Council veto and China and Russia generally oppose intervention other than to liberate invaded states (which was the case with Kuwait when it was invaded by Saddam Hussein).

In my view - contested by some - there is now a narrowly proscribed international law right for states to render assistance to innocent civilians battling for their lives. This right of humanitarian intervention goes back to the "just war" periods in the 16th century: "if tyranny journey becomes so unbearable as to cause the nation to rise, any foreign power is entitled to help an oppressed people that has requested its assistance". Examples of such action are the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda to overthrow Idi Amin; India's incursion to halt genocide and mass rapes in Bangladesh; and the US takeover of Grenada to stop the mayhem after Maurice Bishop's murder.

These actions were, however, justified at the time on very dubious grounds of self-defence and the chief objection to a broadly stated "right of humanitarian intervention" without Security Council approval remains that it is liable to be mistaken for "a right of ideological intervention". Hitler demonstrated its danger of abuse when he invoked it to justify the use of force to protect German minorities from alleged brutality, in Czechoslovakia and then in Poland.

But more recent examples show that a rule of law, built on traditional defences of necessity (excusing unlawful actions taken to prevent serious and imminent peril) and distress (illegality permitted to protect life in an emergency), is developing to allow "coalitions of the willing" to use appropriate force to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. The two important precedents are the "safe havens" operation by the US, Britain and France, invading Northern Iraq without specific Security Council authority to protect Kurds against violent reprisals threatened by Saddam, and the NATO bombing of Kosovo.

The defects in the Security Council require the acknowledgement of a limited right, without its mandate, for an alliance like NATO to use force to stop the commission of crimes against humanity. That right arises once the council has identified a situation as a threat to world peace (and it has so identified Libya, by referring it unanimously to the ICC prosecutor). To be lawful, the intervention must be at the request of potential victims, for the purpose of stopping crimes against humanity and no mixed or ulterior motive, eg. of obtaining territory or oil. It must be proportionate - no greater force than necessary to achieve a reasonably obtainable objective. Subject to these preconditions, NATO's intervention in a Libyan emergency would be lawful, unless or until it was denounced by majority vote in the Security Council.

A rule of law framed in this way may have to be invoked if Libyans in vast numbers are not to become victims of vengeance from a resurgent Gaddafi. International law is not passed by any parliament: it "emerges" or "crystallises" from state practice, conventions (including human rights conventions), the writings of jurists and the dictates of collective conscience. The duty to stop the mass murder of innocents, as best we can if they request our help, has crystalised sufficiently to make the use of force by NATO not merely legitimate but lawful. It must be a very last resort, after the Security Council fails to act.
Click to expand...
So interesting that despite there being legalistic grounds for intervention without the SC, Clinton has said that the US will not take action without UN approval (which they will not get).
 
it is not the issue of legality but whether the armed forces of the West can crush down another Arabian state without stopping the momentum that should have rearranged the entire lot rather more peacefully/cheaper .
 
r16 said:
it is not the issue of legality but whether the armed forces of the West can crush down another Arabian state without stopping the momentum that should have rearranged the entire lot rather more peacefully/cheaper .
Click to expand...

From what I've read, legality is one of the issues, with the other one being whether or not western intervention would actually be a positive thing. Gaddafi is already playing the "it's the west's fault" card.
 
not that ı am any kind of expert but history has far too many examples of legality issue following closely what the militaries can and can't . A Western fight would put off the future Tahrirs . And this is what Pentagon is actually arguing right now .
 
It's interventionist if we do it though! :cry:

Seriously though. This guy's right on the doorstep of the free world. Frankly I'm amazed it's taking so long to reach the obvious answer of some drastic action needing to be taken against a butcher.
 
There's always the risk that US intervention will increase and solidify support for Qaddafi. There is no answer that is certain to result in a solution the US would want.
 
Taniciusfox said:
It's interventionist if we do it though! :cry:

Seriously though. This guy's right on the doorstep of the free world. Frankly I'm amazed it's taking so long to reach the obvious answer of some drastic action needing to be taken against a butcher.
Click to expand...

The problem is that action against "a butcher" itself involves butchery.

Look back at the recent history of NATO interventionism: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq (except France in that last one). All remain protectorates under military occupation. Add another one? Imperial overstretch is already being felt...

Furthermore, Kosovo is one case where the actual "war against the butcher" caused more refugees and more dead and wounded that the "butcher" had caused. Allegations of genocide and ethnic cleaning then were later proven false, the televised images of an alleged massacre of civilians used to justify the bombing of Serbia proved a fabrication. Iraq is another case where the country suffered a precipitous drop in population as a result of war and occupation, and has so far been kept unstable and without a sovereign, effective government, as it suits the imperial overlords. Afghanistan is, well, Afghanistan... And Bosnia is a territory which no one really knows what it is today or what it is supposed to be in the future; a province of a still invisible empire (the EU)? a powder keg kept in reserve just in case further instability becomes convenient in the region? an accidental mess for which no one has an exit strategy? all three, for different players?

edit: should I add Lebanon to the string of western interventionism? In common with all the others, an international intervention which instead of solving local problems, freezes and prolongs them. Interventionism is not about creating stable, independent states, but maintaining unstable, dependent satellites. And it's not only western of course. Lebanon, for example, as been a victim of several other different foreign interests,: Syria, Iran, Israel, Turkey, etc...
 
innonimatu said:
Oh, thanks, I had no idea, I get all my news from Hollywood movies! :rolleyes:
I have my own favorite sources, and those tell me that the rebels fight like a disorganized rabble, and that the reported dead have so far died mostly in the fighting. With "friendly fire" a major cause of casualties among the rebels. Who also managed to blow up much of their ammunition in Benghazi, apparently. They'll soon run out of ammunition, even if not of young fools wanting to die. Unless (extremely unlikely, as I've been saying - other governments actually have cause for contentment with this civil war in Libya) there is some foreign invasion, they're going to lose their war.

These news we get easily. What we don't get are the political motives behind these recent evens, or the list of forces available to each side.
Click to expand...

The first part of your reply is something pertinent to "news". The political motives for a rebellion these days in that area aren't "news" and I don't see why someone should explain you in flash news the motives behind a rebellion against oppressing dictators who can go as far as bombing their own countries cities when they see their grip loosened. My only explanation was that you expected a romanced hollywood version.

We don't know exactly how Libya is divided, only have some vague news about tribal divisions and "Sahara fighters" airlifted by the government (not to mention the "mercenaries"), plus news about either defections of military units who now obey another government in Benghazi, contradicted by other news about how that new government (?) has no trained troops available, only militias, and by news about attacks on army barracks there in the beginning of the whole thing. Nor do we know the foreign connections on which either side may draw to continue the war: how many politicians has Qaddafi bought abroad so far (how many are compromised for having taken money from him), what governments are supplying him with the alleged mercenaries and ammunition, what governments may support the rebels rather than allow a civil ware drag on in Libya?
Click to expand...

I assume you speak of yourself in plural since it seems a lot of people have a good idea of how Lybia is divided and why.
- I don't see what's your difficulty in understanding what are mercenaries, so much to use quotes, and why they would be employed in this case.
- defections of military units who now obey a new government? You had previously (and correctly) stated that rebels fight like a disorganized rabble (couldn't be otherwise when common people take arms against the oppressor, did you read about red jackets formations of french rebels during the battle at Bastille?) now it seems you really watched a hollywood movie. There is a self appointed revolutinoary council though (http://ntclibya.org/english/). There might still be military units who defected but they do not give a more organized support to the rebellion. The rebels did sack barracks in the beginning stages of the revolution thanks to the surprise effect, so they have a number of tanks and a bunch of other heavy weaponry which they also aquire every other victory over the government forces.
in the tv reportage I have seen this is how the rebels fight (bear in mind it is mostly a defensive war on their part trying to hold on the strategic points like airfields and oil plants they aquired in the first days of the revolution).
Rumors/word spread of an attack of government forces (normally jeeps with mercenaries and light artillerry) attacking place X. People, volounteers of any age, jump on pickups and drive to the location, obviously very poorly armed. Along the road others offer water or whatever else they can spare, yell that God is great and Gheddafi must die. These volounteers get to the front and join the skirmishes. Those who die are called martyrs etc. The rebels are normally able to repel attacks thanks to numbers and fervor. This war of skirmishes obviously has led to a stall because the rebels are unable of any real retaliation and the government doesn't seem capable to retake the rebel strongholds. I think that given the nature of the war, it is a civil war, the poor infrastructures of the country, the fact that one side is a regime that does everything in its power to stop information flow and to sidetrack public opinion (foreign and national) while the other side lacks pretty much anything except good will, I think that given this we can't really have more detailed news. The only thing I would be worried about is that apparently the rebel side lacks real leadership except for a former minister, which could become simply an usurper. But there is strong will from common people to establish a real democratic republic and they are perfectly aware of the damage Gheddafi has done and is doing to his country and people (many lybians speak Italian and I heard interviews of refugees).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bonyduck Campersang
Middle East thread
21 22 23
Replies
457
Views
23K
Broken_Erika
Broken_Erika
Aquila SPQR
[POLISH - google translated] CD-Action: "I have bad news: this is the worst "Civ" in history" 6+/10
Replies
0
Views
2K
Aquila SPQR
Aquila SPQR
X
Version 1.1 Invisible Hand Update revealed
Replies
18
Views
2K
Thormodr
Thormodr
Legen
  • Locked
[DLL] (7-NS) Units keep up in experience when their origin city's starting XP increases
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Krajzen
To stand the test of time - or a little argumentative essay on why civ7 should allow retention of the old civs in the new eras
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
7K
I was NC
I
Back
Top Bottom