drat01 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I can't believe the UK cozied up to him. A lot of the world has - why? ................ OIL and influence in the Arab community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Gaddafi has always been a total psychopath. I can't believe the UK cozied up to him. In fairness to Blair the deal was international rehabilitation in return for his WMD programme. In 2004 the UK/USA/UN et al thought that was a good idea and Pan Arab revolution wasn't dreamed of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It's genocide and if the Egyptian generals want to do something useful they should invade ASAP to stop this now. Can't believe it's happening. Jon maybe these General's - who apparently wont be the Gvmt are too busy seeing people like Cameron and the arms companies? Common sense should have told Cameron to keep out, but the man is never one to miss an opportunity On a more general point while a lot of the west will be happy with gvmt's being toppled little is being thought about what comes in next and the impact this will have on oil at a time when the economic impact of the financial mess is still being sorted. Let's hope countries have a lot of plan b's and c's for the impact that would have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It's genocide and if the Egyptian generals want to do something useful they should invade ASAP to stop this now. Can't believe it's happening. Jon maybe these General's - who apparently wont be the Gvmt are too busy seeing people like Cameron and the arms companies? Common sense should have told Cameron to keep out, but the man is never one to miss an opportunity Normally accept your politicial point scoring as part of the game but this time I think it's wildly off the mark. However in light of rapidily evolving events he should (imo) be on the phone to the leaders of France, Spain, and Italy scratching together a joint force of shiny new Typhoons, whatever cruise missile armed naval assets we have in the Med and unleashing holy hell on Egyptian military aviation and airfields, ASAP. This is going down now and we need someone who is prepared to take action to help these poor bastards. F*** the international consequences, Libyans will thank us for it. On a more general point while a lot of the west will be happy with gvmt's being toppled little is being thought about what comes in next and the impact this will have on oil at a time when the economic impact of the financial mess is still being sorted. Let's hope countries have a lot of plan b's and c's for the impact that would have We've got reserves and can tap other sources short term. The Saudi's and the Russians would play ball if needs be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 he should (imo) be on the phone to the leaders of France, Spain, and Italy scratching together a joint force of shiny new Typhoons, whatever cruise missile armed naval assets we have in the Med and unleashing holy hell on Egyptian military aviation and airfields, ASAP. This is going down now and we need someone who is prepared to take action to help these poor bastards. F*** the international consequences, Libyans will thank us for it. I agree, assuming we make some clear and specific threats first, backed up by evidence that we will do more than make diplomatic objections if they carry on. Needs to happen very quickly though. It'll be the Kurds and the Bosnian Muslims all over again otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 ...though on reflection, perhaps Libyan airfields would be the better target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 WS now saying Gaddafi is bombing his own army bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 On a more general point while a lot of the west will be happy with gvmt's being toppled little is being thought about what comes in next and the impact this will have on oil at a time when the economic impact of the financial mess is still being sorted. Let's hope countries have a lot of plan b's and c's for the impact that would haveI doubt little is being thought about it. I would guess it's the main thing occupying the (empty) minds of the west thus ensuring the lack of response, or co-ordinated response we have seen so far. What's in it for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 21, 2011 So, dictators are being replaced by military regimes waving a flag of democracy - is it just me that doesn't think this is going to end well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 So, dictators are being replaced by military regimes waving a flag of democracy - is it just me that doesn't think this is going to end well? I think it won't just change into another military dictatorship. Hard to tell from afar, but it's starting to feel like one of those periodic tectonic shifts, when the mood and attitude of the people is so far adrift from the prevailing models of government that it can't hold together. In times like that, though the various regimes will at first try to rearrange things to keep them pretty much the same, it may not be possible. However, there's no organised opposition, no tradition of articulating grievances and alternative positions, so translating this unrest into regime change which is sustainable is hard to imagine right now. That feels like a recipe for confusion, exploitation, some false starts, and a lot of uncertainty. But there are signs that there has been a decisive change of mood, especially among younger people. In that sense, there's no going back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Latest on BBC WS is someone in Tripoli saying she can hear gunshots, may be from the air, but nothing like bombs. Very tense situation, most people very afraid, some still prepared to go out. Phone service going on and off. Reports of killings by mercenaries, but seems to be more hearsay than direct observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Comment from a Libyan (?) on the WS tonight: this is not the time for soul-searching, this is the time for action. Europe acts quickly when its interests are at stake, but now we are being killed. Another commentator: I hope there is a tempering of values with commercial interests...trails off into vague waffle... Libyan: it was sold to us that the new relationship would change the way he acts. But what it taught us was you don't invade a place, like Iraq, or support the son of a dictator. What was needed was investment in civil society. Countries improve when you have independent courts and civil society. That is what we need, not rhetoric about Gadaffi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Berlusconi, what a slimy Grade A word removed. And now to some comments on Libya from another political leader facing problems of his own, Silvio Berlusconi. The Italian president has enjoyed a close relationship with Muammar Gaddafi and was the subject of intense criticism over the weekend for failing to condemn violence in Libya, when he said he had not called the Libyan leader because he did not want to "disturb" him during the revolt. Now, Reuters reports that Berlusconi appears to be changing his tune: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Monday condemned violence by Libyan forces against civilians as "unacceptable" and said he was "alarmed" over the situation in the North African state. The statement by Berlusconi, who has cultivated close ties with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, comes after he was criticised widely for not speaking up earlier on Libya and saying that he did not want to "disturb" Gaddafi during the crisis. Berlusconi also called on the European Union and the international community to do everything to prevent the situation in Libya from degenerating into a civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 22, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2011 So, dictators are being replaced by military regimes waving a flag of democracy - is it just me that doesn't think this is going to end well? I think it won't just change into another military dictatorship. Hard to tell from afar, but it's starting to feel like one of those periodic tectonic shifts, when the mood and attitude of the people is so far adrift from the prevailing models of government that it can't hold together. In times like that, though the various regimes will at first try to rearrange things to keep them pretty much the same, it may not be possible. However, there's no organised opposition, no tradition of articulating grievances and alternative positions, so translating this unrest into regime change which is sustainable is hard to imagine right now. That feels like a recipe for confusion, exploitation, some false starts, and a lot of uncertainty. But there are signs that there has been a decisive change of mood, especially among younger people. In that sense, there's no going back. this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 So, dictators are being replaced by military regimes waving a flag of democracy - is it just me that doesn't think this is going to end well? My bold: Only in Egypt so far and I think international pressure will ensure a hand over to civil control. The danger is that although this is being led now by idealised youth dreaming of democracy, the civil structures to make it happen don't exist - indeed they've been ruthlessly smashed by the secular dictators who are now getting the good news from their people. By some distance the most organised opposition groups are Islamists and they generally have an agenda that does not include liberal democracy. Worth noting that in 1979 Iranian youth was far and away the most Westernised in the region and we know how that turned out. Maybe the ideas of the youth will win through, but the bigger struggle will start once the dictators are gone. That's where the West needs to be focusing our diplomatic and financial resources. Another interesting scenario is the emergence of a Saladin type figure somewhere down the road who can unify the whole region - maybe around 2012.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undesirable Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 So, dictators are being replaced by military regimes waving a flag of democracy - is it just me that doesn't think this is going to end well? My bold: Only in Egypt so far and I think international pressure will ensure a hand over to civil control. The danger is that although this is being led now by idealised youth dreaming of democracy, the civil structures to make it happen don't exist - indeed they've been ruthlessly smashed by the secular dictators who are now getting the good news from their people. By some distance the most organised opposition groups are Islamists and they generally have an agenda that does not include liberal democracy. Worth noting that in 1979 Iranian youth was far and away the most Westernised in the region and we know how that turned out. Maybe the ideas of the youth will win through, but the bigger struggle will start once the dictators are gone. That's where the West needs to be focusing our diplomatic and financial resources. Another interesting scenario is the emergence of a Saladin type figure somewhere down the road who can unify the whole region - maybe around 2012.... Isn't the danger that it is interference by the US and to a lesser extent the UK that has helped fuel the growth of the Islamists in opposition and that any further interference will simply give further credence to these groups? What is there to suggest that the US and UK wouldn't support another dictatorship in the region in order to protect their financial interests? Like you say it doesn't seem as though the progressive elements in Libya, Egypt or Bahrain are anywhere near as organised as they were in Iran in 1979 where you had a left leaning democratic movement that was crushed and recuperated by the Ayotollah and the ultra-conservative religious establishment. However this is obviously spectulation on my part as I'm none the wiser to anyone else about the situation on the ground amongst progressive elements in these countries. Religion is a great tool for putting the breaks on revolutionary movement and it wouldn't be surprising in the slightest if religious leaders managed to take hold of the revolutionary spirit in these countries and direct it for their own means and ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Isn't the danger that it is interference by the US and to a lesser extent the UK that has helped fuel the growth of the Islamists in opposition and that any further interference will simply give further credence to these groups? What is there to suggest that the US and UK wouldn't support another dictatorship in the region in order to protect their financial interests? Mea culpa? David Cameron: Britain has contributed to Middle East instability by backing autocratic regimes Britain and the US have contributed to instability in the Middle East by supporting autocratic regimes that suppress human rights, David Cameron has said. The Prime Minister said that popular uprisings now flaring across the Middle East showed the West had been wrong to support dictators and oppressive regimes. Speaking to the Kuwaiti Parliament, Mr Cameron said Britain would back democracy campaigners seeking greater rights across the Middle East. "History is sweeping through your neighbourhood," he said. "Not as a result of force and violence, but by people seeking their rights, and in the vast majority of cases doing so peacefully and bravely." Britain and other Western countries supported Hosni Mubarak, ousted by protests in Egypt. They have also backed authoritarian regimes in the Gulf region, making few efforts to push allies towards democratic reform. That approach was wrong and counter-productive, Mr Cameron said. "For decades, some have argued that stability required highly controlling regimes, and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk. So, the argument went, countries like Britain faced a choice between our interests and our values. "And to be honest, we should acknowledge that sometimes we have made such calculations in the past. But I say that is a false choice. "As recent events have confirmed, denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability, rather the reverse." He said that Britain's economic and security interests would ultimately be advanced by a more democratic Middle East. "Our interests lie in upholding our values – in insisting on the right to peaceful protest, in freedom of speech and the internet, in freedom of assembly and the rule of law." Mr Cameron's call for reform could be seen as heralding a new approach to countries like Saudi Arabia, where the Western-backed royal family firmly opposes democratic reform. Mr Cameron insisted his remarks did not mean Britain will try to force Gulf regimes to become Western-style democracies. "There is no single formula for success, and there are many ways to ensure greater, popular participation in Government," he said. "We respect your right to take your own decisions, while offering our goodwill and support." "But we cannot remain silent in our belief that freedom and the rule of law are what best guarantee human progress and economic success, and that each country should find its own path to achieving peaceful change." I'd have preferred him to have finished by saying that the RAF were approaching Tripoli at mach 2 to begin righting our wrongs... but it's a start, and an indication that we won't be going back to the old way of cynically supporting dictators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I'd have preferred him to have finished by saying that the RAF were approaching Tripoli at mach 2 to begin righting our wrongs... but it's a start, and an indication that we won't be going back to the old way of cynically supporting dictators. It would have been a bit more convincing if he'd said it before the uprisings. As it is, it looks more like "back the emerging winner". Still, let's see what he actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's tangential, but I wonder what'll happen to the various Libyan documents on that Lockerbie Bombing business - The bloke who got put away for it didn't have anything top do with it. It'd be revealing to see what the real truth of deals done etc is. So we probably won't get to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It would have been a bit more convincing if he'd said it before the uprisings. It would probably have been a bit more convincing, too, had the arms dealers not been with him and if it was not the stated aim of the Prime Minster to refashion British foreign policy, the Foreign Office, to make us much more focused on the commercial aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts