andythejock01wrx

Doing not bad Asif.

Have been in the same job for 5 yrs, boss is a bit of a banker. Went for a job interview with another company last week - was one of 4 to be interviewed - I got it! More cash and the chance of a non banker boss!

And yeah, my gf lives with me but I still window shop from time to time when I'm out- call it instinct! Look and not touch of course!

Anyway, I digress!

Andy

JTaylor

It's evidently not clear-cut, so we can agree that there's an element of hope involved but, this isn't Iraq. A reforming Tunisia on one side and a reforming Egypt the other with Europe just across the med. With Gadaffi in place, there's no hope.

We've picked sides though, haven't we? I get the cultural relativism argument, but don't subscribe to it. Look at the uprisings taking place across the region, people are crying out for fair representation. It's evolutionary, isn't it, or do Arabs like being told what to do? Gadaffi, neutrality or hope?

Regarding your example, wouldn't we be enforcing a stalemate and if we were, what would be the exit strategy for that?
The west are often criticised for propping up dictators or fighting 'illegal' wars or getting involved without being asked, well, none of those charges can be applied this time. This situtation is unique.

tony de wonderful

People like DCI want to have their cake and eat it!

Leslie

Yes I have had that kind of experience as you say Paul. As far as training is concerned, it seemed to go according to nationality, some were good and others were frighteningly bad!

Les

Leslie

Yes ok JT. I just said what it looks like anyway.

Les

JTaylor

In which case I'm glad I showed my workings.

The Zohan

Good read http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...618969257.html

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Very interesting article indeed. No doubt it will be dismissed by the usual suspects though!

JTaylor

It's certainly an article crafted well enough to be deserving of a response. Let's pick one paragraph and shine a light on it:

Syria, Yemen and Bahrain are all heavily sectarian rebellions. In Syria we'd be supporting Sunnis, in The Yemen we'd be supporting Al-Qeada and in Bahrain we'd be supporting the Shia. Does this need any further analysis? Palestine - we can step in and solve that, right? Ivory Coast - which side should we pick, fellas; the southern Christians or the northern Muslims? Believing in sky-fairies poisons everything. What the author doesn't mention, incidentally, is that the UN and the French patrol a buffer zone between them. Zimbabwe - 2008 UN draft resolution veto'd by China who have a vested interest in leaving Mugabe in place; if we'd gone in, not only would we have upset the second largest (at the moment) economic power on the planet, but we would have also engaged in an 'illegal' intervention, and since Iraq the anti-west commentators have constantly touted this as a reason not to take action.

In Libya we could intervene. Just because we can't do everything, it doesn't mean we do nothing.

"Tarak Barkawi is Senior Lecturer, Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge."

I wonder if Tarak will be disappeared for publishing his anti-West article? No. He won't be disappeared. He lives and works in a liberal democracy.

Cheers,

Usual suspect.

hodgy0_2

if the rebels start shelling Gadaffi strongholds which contain civillians (Gadaffi and non Gadaffi supporting ones)

should the Allies protect the civilians (and uphold the terms of the mandate) and bomb the rebels

or do we have what Alan Partidge observed - Good Aids and Bad Aids

JTaylor

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Bingo!

David Lock

And who is going to teach the rebels what a democracy is and how to go about it?

"Democracy for Dummies" perhaps?

dl

tony de wonderful

Al Jazzera isn't too bad but this sort of article is typical for what passes as educated opinion in the Arab world, it's always these oddly wordy and pseudo-academic articles preferebly written by some western academic which panders to the Arab streets natural anti-western and anti-Israeli tendencies. It's weird the way sometimes the more emotion based the argument and stance the more wordy and academic like the style becomes.

Only a dishonest man would try and compare Palestine, Libya, Zimbabwe. They are totally different.

But then it's easy just to take an anti-western stance. Not having to think is easy.

tony de wonderful

I wish the Gadaffi supporters would stop kissing his photographs. It's weirdly erotic and disgusting. I saw one just now servilely kiss his hand.

JTaylor

Who taught the republicans in this country between 1640 and 1660? Plato. The rebels have 350 years of struggle to review and act upon. It's one hell of a back catalogue. They may even ask the British, French and the US for more help given our demonstrable success at making our revolts against despotism stick. Should we resign ourselves to the notion that Arab people (and the Persians come to that) and more specifically their working class, like being told what to do? If that's the conclusion, then we'll have to keep swallowing our vomit each and everytime we do business with a tyrant.

David Lock

I am not 100% convinced that Western style democracy is the complete holy grail that you suggest. Certainly not tyrant Saddam/Gaddafi type dictatorship, or Burma come to that, but maybe there is something in between that would work better?


I am still sticking to my view that the West has bitten off more than it can chew and am amazed that Parliament was so overwhelmingly supportive.

dl

JTaylor

Cool, but do you know what it is? What's on offer? Churchill expressed this beautifully in 1947 - "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Which again is entirely your perogative, but does it stand-up under scrutiny?

Perhaps the 557 elected MPs who voted in favour scrutinised the unique circumstances in Libya. As for the 13 who voted against, it's worthwhile asking what their motive was?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The MPs of the time were also behind Iraq.... and look at the mess we are in there!

JTaylor

The 'nos to the left' were a significant minority though, weren't they? 412 to 149, outweighing the nos in this parliamentary vote by a factor of 11.5:1. That's because this isn't Iraq, this is Libya.

Leslie

I have to say the some of the actions which have been taken against the Libyan government forces etc. seem to be verging on regime change which is illegal.

I approve of action taken as the UN resolution says to protect the Libyan people from deadly action taken by government troops, but I feel uneasy about bombing attacks against government military strongholds in city centres.

The rest of the world wants to see the back of Gadaffi, but his removal is down to his own people as I said before about the attack on Iraq.

Les

JTaylor

I understand this position, it seems to align with Hodgy's point earlier. With regards Gulf War I, you'll recall that the coalition was widely criticised for not supporting the Shia and the Kurds in their attempts to overthrow Saddam. The coalition cited international law and 'mission-creep' for reasons not to finish the job. The international community imposed a no-fly zone, but genocide remained the punishment for the insurgents. 12 years later the no fly-zone was still being flouted, the Chinese and Russia veto'd invasion and so a coalition of the willing went in and removed the murderous b*stard. This was criticised for being illegal.

Fast forward to Libya. Let's assume we do nothing more than 'protect the citizens'. You'll have a stalemate and Nato will be criticised for its involvement in a long, drawn-out war. Let's assume Nato interpret 'all necessary means' to protect the Libyan people as a green-light for regime change bringing a relatively swift end to the conflict. Nato will be criticised for mission-creep and, according to your interpretation, illegality. Let's assume we **** off out of it because it's too much hassle. Let the genocide commence.

Hindsight is 20:20. Nato won't have its benefit here and can't draw any consitent measure of public reaction from the past.

Just a quick question in the interests of the dialectic, if I may? Imagine the rebels lose their momentum and as a result UNSC 1974 is drafted and calls for a quick end to this conflict, but Russia and China choose to wield their veto. Would we simply enforce a stalemate for the forseeable future?

DCI Gene Hunt

Why do you only see two options? the "all in" and "stand idly by" option... what's wrong with applying the resolution and then aiming for a diplomatic solution?

dpb

So even Nato having to admit Bin larder's lot are in the mix

What a mess , or is it

tony de wonderful

There is AQ in the British Muslim community but would you characterise British Muslims are AQ?

JTaylor

Evening, DCI.

Give me a scenario.

DCI Gene Hunt

Evening, JT.

I'll have a go...

Uprising in Libya, the western and eastern tribes revolt against the central tribe whom many consider to be a dictator. Some central tribes also rise up in the heat of the moment supported by a lack of direct action from the Libyan central government.

The Libyan government strike back, hard and fast against the rebels causing mass casualties amongst the civilians located around the major cities being occupied by the rebels, then...

The UN steps in and issues a mandate to protect all civilians (regardless of side) clear warnings are provided to reinforce the fact that ANY attacks that threaten civilians will be treated with zero tolerance. Gadaffi's soldiers mount an assault on a rebel town - the result is the entire column is pacified by UN assets. The rebels sensing that this gives them an opening to attack a Gadaffi strong hold roll rocket launchers towards their target down a main highway - these too are pacified by UN assets. Quicker than you can say "now now boys" all sides stop all attacks in fear of UN action.

Then through freezing of assets and embargoes on trade the government is forced to depose Gadaffi, freedom prevails, no one killed (that wasn't an aggressive ****) and a central government is formed.

Easy really

JTaylor

Sorted.

It sounds much like this scenario I speculated about a couple of posts up:

What sort of timescale do you imagine we'd be looking at for your proposal?

Additionally, how would the fledgling reformers (who we're trying to influence) in Tunisia and Egypt view the West's neutrality? How would the rebels feel about the West bombing them as they 'fought for freedom', particularly given that ultimately we would want to be their friends? How would Muslims across the globe feel about the West bombing Muslims on both sides, rather than being seen as protecting rebels who joined the 'Arab Spring'?

Walk in the park.

tony de wonderful

What's Islam got to do with it?

Besides Muslims don't always complain when Muslims are dying? It just seems to depend who is doing the killing, not even why!

JTaylor

You're applying a rational thought process to an irrational situation. Perception is everything, isn't it? I agree, by the way, but it's not pragmatic to ignore the mindset.

Here's a link from the good people at Quilliam about the narrative:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/im...d-language.pdf