tony de wonderful

The 'mindset' isn't necessarily what it appears to be though.

If I started calling myself a Proletariat and 'caring' about the treatment of fellow Proletariat...from this POV of working class solidarity and collectivism you would role your eyes because we have seen in the past how that idea of working class solidarity fell apart in the USSR, and it was just lip service with the nomenclature living as an elite and the rest of society their serfs.

i.e the idea of working class solidarity was exposed as just a pose or stance and not 'real' just ideology which could be dropped.

Yet with the idea of Islamic collectivism we presume that it's a given and immutable.

Every other collectivism we are able to criticise and be suspicious of though.

JTaylor

I agree, and if you read the link, you'll find progressive Muslims agree, too. However, my analysis related to the situation in Libya.

Is this an academic exersise or do you think that no diplomatic consideration should be given to Islamic sensibilities?

AsifScoob

Why don't you two just phone each other up or something?

Every thread either of you produces is full of complete garbage, that no one else is interested in or agrees with.

Neither of you has an opinion of your own, just copied from others, whom you 'admire', and you just get on everyones ****!

You did this so much last year and since - it is what first prompted me to challenge you both and we all know how you reacted (badly) to that.

Not only have I not seen a single sensible post from either of you on this or the other Libya thread, (or any thread that I can remember) the stuff you have posted on here is the highest quality of crap I have ever seen!

Many sensible people have taken the good time to respond, answer, and take apart every ridiculous point you have made, but you don't get it do you? You just insist on typing nonsense to annoy people, which feeds your craving for attention from people on the internet!!

Just stop it FFS!

Asif

(That's better)

tony de wonderful

Well I think that the Arab world should be involved because this is a regional issue, but as to whether a white muslim convert living in Bedford has an opinion or POV that matter more than your or I, then I think not?

We should not reinforce the idea of Islamic collectivism.

hodgy0_2

but this is the hallmark of fundementalism -- evidence-less based beliefs

DCI Gene Hunt

With increased respect... as fair and even handed, world police if you like.

The west would be protecting civilians, so they'd only get direct military response if they stepped out of line, I'm choosy about my friends and people that attack and kill civilians wouldn't be on the short list.

It's a view, but mine is the UN would be protecting civilians, if some **** attacks them they in turn get neutralised.... nothing wrong with that. I'm certain that if the UN started treating the issue from a position of neutrality we would probably been seen in a different light. Picking sides is basically flawed and doesn't work in the long term.

JTaylor

Interesting, DCI. Completely unfalsifiable, but interesting.

P.S. What about timescale?

P.P.S. Regards an ultra-ethical foreign policy, by the way, I'm with you, but fear how it would pan-out in the real-world, the hear and now and the spectre of realpolitik.

David Lock

Now the West seem to be digging a deeper hole for themselves by talking about supplying arms to the rebels. Now we, the West, don't really know who the rebels are aside from being an angry group of untrained civilians and with whispers of a sprinkling of al-Qaida operatives joining in.

And it certainly won't help the rebels' cause when Gaddafi's troops overpower a rebellion and seize rebel weapons. If it comes to a Tripoli vs the rest civil war then we would just be arming one side, who may perhaps be taking on civilian opposition, not just Gaddafi troops?

The sooner an Arab puts a bullet hole in Gaddafi's head the better for everyone.

dl

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

You just knew it was going to be another mess from the outset though.

And then there were three (to quote a dodgy Genesis album title)

David Lock

Yes and you don't need to be a rocket scientist or some wise old diplomatic guru to realise that. That's why I was amazed that is got such overwhelming support in the Commons.

It's f,ucking oil again. Down in the Ivory Coast a civil war has started and around 1 million may be homeless. And the UN? Just a few poorly armed troops guarding a hotel FFS.

dl

DCI Gene Hunt

Let's just say a lot less then taking sides as the UN is now.

When you think about it the current strategic objective is regime change, that's not just offing Gaddafi but it involves the wholesale replacement of most national and sub-national institutions. That task will likely cause massive issues and probably drag the entire region into serious civil war, so rather than putting a time line against my suggested alternative solution (and there are many more) - I'd rather consider it to be the most sustainable solution that has the least probability of prolonged domestic conflict while providing the best chance at avoiding billions of pounds/dollars in rebuilding / reconstructing a new Libya.

Conflicts are never sorted on the battlefield, it takes people sitting around a table to do that.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Wise words

tony de wonderful

Did Kosova have oil?

DCI Gene Hunt

I'm working from home today... and just heard that Obama is voicing the fact that he's considering arming the rebels?

This is a prime example of sending the wrong message. We have the UN now leading the no-fly zone mandate (supported by the US) and of late there's been a few wobbles regarding the fact that their primary objective is to 'protect civilians' on either side of this conflict - which in turn could (and should imho) result in targeting rebel or government assets that are endangering civilian life etc.

Now as well as supporting the UN the US have also decided not to rule out arming the rebels, so it may be in conflict with the mandate as:

a) You're now providing the capability to attack cities/towns - occupied by civilians which flies in the face of the mandate
b) You've just picked a side - you're not going to bomb people you're also supplying
c) You can't play both sides of this fence - e.g. it's making the UN look completely pointless

Still SKY news seems to be enjoying it all

JTaylor

How would the UN approach The Yemen?

tony de wonderful

Tell that to the Founding Fathers of Carthage.

Tell that to Hitler!

David Lock

Not that I am aware of.

I did not say it's ONLY oil but I think it is a significant factor in the West's overall strategy in the ME and in Libya at the moment.

Does the Ivory Coast have oil?

dl

DCI Gene Hunt

In what legal scenario?

DCI Gene Hunt

Oil's up there as a significant issue alright. But the US is concerned about Saudi at the moment - all these other revolts are leading up to a far greater issue and the US is making sure its resources are capable of supporting that particular issue rather than getting them all bogged down in North / East Africa.

JTaylor

Ok, so as and when the measures for intervention are in place. With that. Also take your point about the infrastructure: Colin Powell's, "if you break it, you own it."

So we're at the crossroads now. Anything to stop the UN implementing the strategy you've outlined?

ETA: Any risk of an East Libya and West Libya?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Did the yanks not learn anything from their meddlings with Afghanistan in the 1980's?

They created what essentially is now known as the Taliban and funded Al qaeda and left the country in a state of civil war after they got what they wanted (Russian defeat).

In other words, if the USA did not give the Afghans weapons, there is a distinct possibility the WTC twin towers would still be standing today.

DCI Gene Hunt

Yemen is not Libya, Libya has something like 80% of its population educated and literate whereas I fear Yemen is way down that scale. So with regards to hearts and minds I'm not familiar (in any significant level of detail) as to the actual embargo that would be proposed, or the periodicity of any restrictions. A key point to consider is the placement of UN observers on the ground to ensure accuracy of information back to the UN.

So no, nothing to stop it implementing it as such - Saudi has erected a massive wall across its border to keep them from crossing/shipping goods in and out so the infrastructure and will is in place to support this pressure however the UN wish to apply it. However I'm firmly basing my views on the political pressure coming from the Arabian and African member states of the UN, from a position of neutrality of course (not picking sides).

To be honest your questions seem extremely vague - I've tried to pad my answers out but I'd appreciate more detail rather than "clarifying a position" and then creating a new branch of questioning as that could be conceived as a never ending attempt to lead the conversation to a point whereby I'm forced to say "black is white" - I know that's not what you're doing but others may.

DCI Gene Hunt

There's always a possibility rather than a risk as such, but that's not to say it would be a bad thing partitioning could be a real answer - I accept there can be issues but there is evidence to suggest this works.

DCI Gene Hunt

To me this is like a playground fight, but instead of splitting it up the teacher hands one of his favourite pupils a baseball bat... we seem to be missing common sense in all our endeavours of late.

JTaylor

As you've pointed out, I'm just very interested in your take as it strikes me as a logical position to this point. I'll try to be more specific to avoid people misunderstanding my intentions.

If the UN applied this neutral strategy to Libya now and assuming it achieves its aim of forcing both sides to the negotiating table. Is there are a risk of an East Libya and a West Libya and if so, is that a risk that you think the UN should be prepared to take?

JTaylor

Answered above, cheers.

DCI Gene Hunt

A couple of posts up...

Partitioning can be an effective alternative when you think about it, and assuming it's done in a fair and frank manner. There may be a case that actually says that Libya should be partitioned to prevent further civil unrest and enable the UN to support economic stabilisation and growth.

The problems then change somewhat from ones of direct conflict to economic power - with regards to what assets are located either side of any partition etc. But the diplomatic efforts of West & East Libya would be expected to work together to resolve any such issue. That exact same scenario worked in Yugoslavia - following years of bloodshed a diplomatic agreement was reached, around that fabled table.

JTaylor

I hear you, but hindsight is 20:20, isn't it? It was an 'enemy of the enemy is our friend' scenario. Do you think the actors Knew how that situation would play out?

DCI Gene Hunt

With their resources, power and responsibility I'd have expected better to be honest... they've shown themselves to be uncoordinated and rash with regards to situations such as this. All I can hear is SKY news banging on about arming the rebels... anyone, and I mean anyone can see that will only exasperate the already dire situation.

Leslie

They don't understand the meaning of that word. I think they would settle for a benevolent dictator since that is the style of rule that they understand.

Takes a very long time to establish a true democray, and even then it will eventually seep away as has been happening in this country for a long time now!

Les

Les