The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Bit worried about what's going on in sub-saharan africa, i've a feeling a lot of massacres like Ivory Coast will spread their way around the continent.

[Awol]

Bit worried about what's going on in sub-saharan africa, I've a feeling a lot of massacres like Ivory Coast will spread their way around the continent.

When it comes to genocide Africans make Pol Pot and Hitler look like enthusiastic amateurs. In fact the only time they've stopped slaughtering each other was under European dominion.

There's only one real law in Africa, the strongest man/tribe rules.

Yemen is still going downhill quickly, Al Qaeda have siezed entire towns in the north and south bringing outside intervention ever closer. My money is still on Saudi getting involved, overtly or covertly.

[LondonLax]

Not sure you can generalise a whole continent of people under that one banner...

[Awol]

Not sure you can generalise a whole continent of people under that one banner...

Aside from the very young and already deteriorating example of democracy in RSA I can't think of a single African State in history that was not ruled by a dictator/strongman. Standing by to be corrected by your examples though.

[LondonLax]

Not sure you can generalise a whole continent of people under that one banner...

Aside from the very young and already deteriorating example of democracy in RSA I can't think of a single African State in history that was not ruled by a dictator/strongman. Standing by to be corrected by your examples though.

Well Namibia and Kenya are also both democracies off the top of my head.

Virtually every country on the planet has been ruled by a violent dictator/strongman in their history, it's not an African thing.

Free democratic elections are a pretty new trend anywhere on the planet you care to look.

In fact the only time they've stopped slaughtering each other was under European dominion.

That is just a daft thing to say...

[mjmooney]

In fact the only time they've stopped slaughtering each other was under European dominion.

That is just a daft thing to say...

Well it's true that the Belgians gave them a bit of a break by taking over the slaughtering for a while. They were very good at it, too.

[Awol]

Well Namibia and Kenya are also both democracies off the top of my head.

There is periodic tribal slaughter in Kenya, the last bout was only a few years ago. Namibia has been independent for 20 years and does seem reasonably stable at the moment. Hopefully that lasts.

Virtually every country on the planet has been ruled by a violent dictator/strongman in their history, it's not an African thing.

It's not an exclusively African thing I agree, but it is the norm there and always has been. Look at Ivory Coast now, Gbagbo looses the election but decides "bugger that, I'm staying in charge, time to start murdering the opposition". It's pretty much standard behaviour in Africa.

Free democratic elections are a pretty new trend anywhere on the planet you care to look.

Indeed, but the tribal warfare and "biggest/hardest kid" rules mentality is alive and well in most of Africa.

In fact the only time they've stopped slaughtering each other was under European dominion.

That is just a daft thing to say...

They were doing it before the age of Empire and have in the most part continued in that vein since independence. It might not be the "right on" thing to say but that doesn't mean it's any less true.

[mjmooney]

"The wrong that we are committing, we will endeavour to make good - as soon as our military goal has been reached".

(German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg, August 1914)

[Gringo]

Egypt: Army crackdown in Cairo's Tahrir Square

Egypt's army has cracked down on protests in Cairo's symbolic Tahrir Square, leaving at least one person dead and dozens injured.

The violence occurred overnight as the army tried to clear protesters calling for ex-President Hosni Mubarak and his family to be tried for corruption.

The injured suffered gunshot wounds but the army denies using live rounds.

Tahrir Square became the symbolic centre of protests that led to Mr Mubarak stepping down this year.

What are NATO doing in libya again?

1. Saudi Arabia … 11 million barrels per day (13.9% of estimated world total)

2. Russia … 9.9 million bpd (12.5%)

3. United States … 8.3 million bpd (10.5%)

4. Iran … 4.2 million bpd (5.3%)

5. Mexico … 3.8 million bpd (4.8%)

6. China … 3.7 million bpd (4.7%)

7. Canada … 3.1 million bpd (3.9%)

8. Norway … 3 million bpd (3.8%)

9. Venezuela … 2.8 million bpd (3.6%)

10. Kuwait … 2.7 million bpd (3.4%)

11. United Arab Emirates … 2.5 million barrels per day (3.2%)

12. Nigeria … 2.4 million bpd (3.1%)

13. Iraq … 2.11 million bpd (2.7%)

14. Algeria … 2.1 million bpd (2.6%)

15. United Kingdom … 1.9 million bpd (2.4%)

16. Libya … 1.7 million bpd (2.2%)

17. Brazil … 1.6 million bpd (2%)

18. Kazakhstan … 1.4 million bpd (1.7%)

19. Angola … 1.3 million bpd (1.6%)

20. Qatar … 1.1 million bpd (1.4%)

We're leaving the rebelling peoples in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain to be crushed, but NATO are in Libya, helping turn the leaderboard green.

[legov]

There's always an angle and it's not altruism.

[snowychap]

We're leaving the rebelling peoples in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain to be crushed, but NATO are in Libya, helping turn the leaderboard green.

Are we leaving them? I thought we were actively seeking (PM and convoy) to arm and support those who are in charge of killing people in this 'freedom square' place?

[Awol]

We're leaving the rebelling peoples in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain to be crushed, but NATO are in Libya, helping turn the leaderboard green.

Are we leaving them? I thought we were actively seeking (PM and convoy) to arm and support those who are in charge of killing people in this 'freedom square' place?

Yes, I'm sure you'd be screaming your support from the rooftops if Western forces went steaming into Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain to support 'democracy' instead.

There are slightly bigger considerations in play than whether we can sell arms to/rob hydrocarbons from 'X' country in flip flop land.

[snowychap]

Yes, I'm sure you'd be screaming your support from the rooftops if Western forces went steaming into Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain to support 'democracy' instead.

Not sure what you're on about, mate.

No, I wouldn't be screaming my support for any military action as it would involve killing people. :?

I am condemning the idea of going forth to arm regimes (nascent ones at that) which may continue the killing that the regimes they replaced did.

Your point appeared to not only miss the dart board but to miss the Lakeside itself.

[Gringo]

That would be the war of terror then I guess?

[Awol]

Yes, I'm sure you'd be screaming your support from the rooftops if Western forces went steaming into Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain to support 'democracy' instead.

Not sure what you're on about, mate.

No, I wouldn't be screaming my support for any military action as it would involve killing people. :?

I am condemning the idea of going forth to arm regimes (nascent ones at that) which may continue the killing that the regimes they replaced did.

Your point appeared to not only miss the dart board but to miss the Lakeside itself.

Point one: Has been removed- OBE?

Point two: All Governments, be they democracies, dictatorships or uber religious fanatics arm themselves, and are entitled to do so as the representatives of nation states.

No offence but your 'idea' is nonsense that utterly ignores the reality of the world we live in, hence my rather sarcastic response.

Besides which the tour you reference took place as this Pan-Arab uprising began so UK Plc hasn't been selling arms to 'nascent regimes'. There is an international arms embargo against Yemen, Bahrain picks up the phone to Saudi/USA and not BAE for whatever they need, Egypt is sorting it's own problems out but gets its weapons in gift aid from uncle sam and to the best of my knowledge we are selling precisely nowt to Tunisia.

Egypt's army has cracked down on protests in Cairo's symbolic Tahrir Square, leaving at least one person dead and dozens injured.

Given the turmoil they've been through of late (and it's the Egyptian army not police who are trying to impose some kind of order) they still managed less casualties than an average protest in London. Regretable yes, but hardly the sky falling in on democratic progress.

[theunderstudy]

Please can we get this back on topic and stop the silly bickering? The main forum has enough of this.

Thanks.

FWIW, I do think the oil plays a massive massive part in why we're intervening in Libya and not Yemen.

[Gringo]

On a nationalistic scale, nothing you have said can be argued against, but on a personal level the lives of each nationality are equivalent. Yet history seems to tell us that we only fight the fights that keep the green high up on the leaderboard. The disinformation coming out of Libya since the start of the conflict is a constant in the west's wars of recent years.

As DaveCam said "we can't intervene on humanitarian grounds everywhere" but we do where it serves our purpose, not the greater humanitarian need.

Engaging in Libya is increasingly looking like a mistake. Civil war, partition, and a rogue leader with foreign supplied arms looks like the future for that country.

[snowychap]

Point one: Has been removed- OBE?

I intend, if possible, to avoid responding to anything further.

[Awol]

Engaging in Libya is increasingly looking like a mistake. Civil war, partition, and a rogue leader with foreign supplied arms looks like the future for that country.

What to do?

If we'd stayed out there was a good chance 100,000's would have died in Benghazi. By getting involved we open up yet another military front with precious little resources to conduct it and no clear exit strategy. Devil and the deep blue scenario but I'd maintain that doing 'something' was correct.

My take FWIW is that we had a plan that included deploying a brigade of mobile infantry (the units were on standby to go) and we pulled back from that as the price of initial US involvement. No fly zones and limited strikes were never going to get rid of Gaddafi and if we'd gone balls out from the off the rebels would be sitting in Tripoli by now.

Yes there is oil which is important, but a wounded Gaddafi (with long experience in projecting terrorism either by his own resources or by proxy) clinging to power is not in the UK national interest.

The whole effort's been fudged and now it's the stalemate situation predicted further back in the thread which we cannot feasibly sustain financially or militarily for long. It needs bold and unsanctioned action to break the deadlock or he'll win by attrition.

In reply to TUS:

Yemen is not a potential threat to UK in the same way as Gaddafi and incidentally has plenty of oil and gas. It's also a four way tussle between Saleh, the opposition and two seperate strands of AQ which have already over run and hold towns in the north and south.

Intervention in Yemen would make Iraq look like a picnic and we've been there before with grim results. Even if we wanted to intervene the UK doesn't have the military means to will the ends there. At least in Libya if we (and France) had the courage to go after and kill Gaddafi with all available resources we could then pull out and leave them to it. Yemen is a tribal, religious and political quagmire of epic proportions.

[snowychap]

FWIW, I do think the oil plays a massive massive part in why we're intervening in Libya and not Yemen.

Possibly. Maybe it has more to do with 'war on terror innit'; maybe it has more to do with governments getting the arse about Megrahi and politicians claiming to be physically sick; maybe it's just the usual arse about face of arming people then not liking them then ploughing in to fight them whilst arming other people whom we might not like in the future and whom we might well plough in to fight whilst arming someone else whom we might also not like in the future...

Belligerent nuts.