Meanwhile in Libya...

[Holycannoli]

The rebels are losing again, and soon they will be armed by NATO while NATO continues to claim that the goal is saving civilian lives, not providing air cover for the rebels to remove Qaddafi.

 

[Frozen In Ice]

What I read is that they got stopped on the way to Sirte, not that they lost any towns. There's no need to get all gloomy yet.

 

[Leonel]

Well I certainly hope that they do pull through. I think they still have that foothold up near Tripoli and if they can breakthrough Gaddafi's hometown and connect up with them, they'd have more of a fighting chance.

 

[GamezRule]

If NATO arms the rebels, you can kiss Gadhafi goodbye.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I just don't want another hell hole, just let somebody win and finish it, everything was good in Libya but they have to rebel. We wouldn't mind a dictator (Bosnians) if life in the country is good, they have a way better living standard then we do, we should've rebelled a long time ago and we have three dictators not 1 but 3!

 

[onedreamer]

Well I certainly hope that they do pull through. I think they still have that foothold up near Tripoli and if they can breakthrough Gaddafi's hometown and connect up with them, they'd have more of a fighting chance.

Breakthrough is a big word. I think most people didn't get what the "rebels" are and how they fight. Someone in town says "there's a battle at XYZ". Volunteers jump on cars and pickups with what weapons they have and go join the battle. The armed rebels with a decent military organization are very few. I can't imagine a breakthrough from such a picture. This time I am with Nick, NATO will arm the rebels or actually it is already doing it because they decided that Gheddafi must go. They aren't just seeing that civilians are protected as much as possible, especially since during a civil war, the best way to protect civilians is put an end to the war, since diplomacy is not an option due to blatant refusal of both parties, NATO/ONU had to pick a side and it obviously couldn't be that of a known dictator. This "revolution" might lead to another regime but it is not sure, while the regime with Gheddafi is sure and it is sure he will seek revenge.
The sparkle of this uprise started after a public manifestation of widows for their dead husbands, killed by "police" during a manifestation in the 90s. I suggest the poster above to refrain from speaking about stuff he doesn't know. I have no idea how someone who doesn't live in Lybia can claim against all evidences that Lybians "were living well and all was good". This is really depressing to read.

 

[Luckymoose]

If NATO arms the rebels, you can kiss Gadhafi goodbye.

And in 20 years you can clap when we have to invade them.

 

[onedreamer]

Luckymoose you have to agree though that ONU and NATO need justification for their existance, do they not? Are you suggesting they do not intervene when it's clearly in their (by all accounts self given, still...) mandate to do it?

 

[kdalibor]

Question is if Qaddafi falls what will happen to Libya? Main body of rebels is Al-Qaida. Does NATO want terrorist state near Europe doorstep?

 

[onedreamer]

kdalibor you registered on this forum to inform us that the rebels are Al-Qaeda? You seriously expected us to buy it? Btw I already heard someone else claiming this... who was it again? Ah, yes!! It was Gheddafi. 'Nuff said.

Besides a terrorist state already exist in Europe since when the ONU supported Kosovo.

 

[kdalibor]

Nah... I didn't register because of this. I had account before but so long ago so I forgot user name and password.

About links between terrorist and rebels there is many sources, but rebels best speak for themselves. There is rebel leader interview:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

 

[Steph]

Where in the link you posted is it written that the rebels are Al Qaida?

The only number I see there is "25 men", which are not even clealry stated as Al Qaida.

Are these 25 men the main body of the rebels?

 

[kdalibor]

Well, he said he fought in Afghanistan before he is captured. He is not formally member of Al-Qaida but they share same goal. I could compare their relations like Nazi Germany and fascist Italy during WW2. As I see from text Pakistani arrested him, hand him over to US, and they to Libya where he was in prison until 2008. He was member, like interview says, member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group responsible for terrorist actions years earlier. Now he is leader of rebels with his own agenda, its not just 25 men spoken about.

 

[Verbose]

I just don't want another hell hole, just let somebody win and finish it, everything was good in Libya but they have to rebel.

Then maybe it wasn't so good after all...

 

[Steph]

Well, he said he fought in Afghanistan before he is captured. He is not formally member of Al-Qaida but they share same goal. I could compare their relations like Nazi Germany and fascist Italy during WW2. As I see from text Pakistani arrested him, hand him over to US, and they to Libya where he was in prison until 2008. He was member, like interview says, member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group responsible for terrorist actions years earlier. Now he is leader of rebels with his own agenda, its not just 25 men spoken about.

Ok. So one guy with possibly 25 men (not more in your article) who fought in Afghanistan = the main body of the rebels are Al Qaida.

Shall we conclude as well that the main population in Serbia is jumping fast to conclusion without much evidence?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Then maybe it wasn't so good after all...

The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in Tripoli, Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruq. Despite its successes, the educational system has failed to train adequate numbers of professionals, resulting in Libya's dependency on foreign teachers, doctors, and scientists.

Many direct and indirect subsidies and free services have helped raise the economic status of low-income families, a policy which has prevented extreme poverty. As part of its socialist model of economic development,

GDP per Capita (US$) 8,900 (Libya)
$6,500 (Bosnia)

the Libyan government has weakened the private sector and confined it to mainly small-scale businesses. While this policy has damaged the Libyan economy significantly, it has also prevented the accumulation of wealth by a small percentage of the population. While the ruling elite (i.e., top civil servants, military officers, and politicians), enjoys much higher living standards compared to average Libyans, and corruption exists within its ranks, Libya is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

from this link

 

[Verbose]

from this link

This isn't about poverty. None of it gainsays that apparently things weren't good enough in Libya to remain the way they were.

Egypt and Tunisia weren't about poverty either. Both are wealthier than for instance the Ukraine.

You should be prepared to be repeatedly amazed about politics, if you actually assume poverty to be a deciding factor in processes like this. It's a lot more probable that if Libyans, and Tunisians and Egyptians, had been a damn sight poorer, and thus reduced to a daily grind of scrounging just to get by, then there would have been no protests and revolts.

The failure of these Mid Eastern autocrats is one of keeping up with how the societies they have set themselves up to run have changed. There used to be this pretty docile and ignorant mass of people mostly engaged in finding enough to feed their families, nd who could be safely officially lied to. (Ghaddafi tells some real whoppers, always has.) Today it's different, but the increasingly sclerotic old duffers in charge (and Ghaddafi is what? 73? and in power over 40 years) failed to notice in time.

 

[Naval Power]

I'm personally against arming the rebels (especially with anything other than small arms), we tried the same thing in Afghanistan and just ended up getting shot at by our own weapons. France can arm the rebels, no reason why we in the state should have to pay for it after launching several hundred million dollars in Tomahawks at them.

 

[kdalibor]

Ok. So one guy with possibly 25 men (not more in your article) who fought in Afghanistan = the main body of the rebels are Al Qaida.

Shall we conclude as well that the main population in Serbia is jumping fast to conclusion without much evidence?

Not one guy... A leader

People of Serbia have close ties with Libya. Many of us lived and worked there and know what is like there.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

This isn't about poverty. None of it gainsays that apparently things weren't good enough in Libya to remain the way they were.

Egypt and Tunisia weren't about poverty either. Both are wealthier than for instance the Ukraine.

You should be prepared to be repeatedly amazed about politics, if you actually assume poverty to be a deciding factor in processes like this. It's a lot more probable that if Libyans, and Tunisians and Egyptians, had been a damn sight poorer, and thus reduced to a daily grind of scrounging just to get by, then there would have been no protests and revolts.

The failure of these Mid Eastern autocrats is one of keeping up with how the societies they have set themselves up to run have changed. There used to be this pretty docile and ignorant mass of people mostly engaged in finding enough to feed their families, nd who could be safely officially lied to. (Ghaddafi tells some real whoppers, always has.) Today it's different, but the increasingly sclerotic old duffers in charge (and Ghaddafi is what? 73? and in power over 40 years) failed to notice in time.

You have a point