Quote :

"Don't know where you are getting your information but Saif went on CNN today and said there were only three options for him and his family: to live and die in Libya. "

Maybe you should read my full post? qntmfred got it, and there is no reason you shouldn't get it either.

Quote :

"His son is not against him and says that the regime would never kill its own people which leads me to ask the question; How do we KNOW the people doing the shooting are Gadhafi's people? It seems way too obvious for me."

Huh? Qaddafi has told his supporters to go out onto the streets and hunt down the "vermin" and "cockroaches" (the protesters) house by house. What more do you want? If he is asking the common man to go kill the protesters, just imagine what orders has has already given to the police and military.

And what about the heavy artillery and snipers? Civilians have access to fighter jets, RPGs, anti-tank shells, and sniper rifles?

BTW, Qaddafi also said that the protesters are 17 year olds whose milk, tea, and nescafe are spiked at night with hallucinogenic drugs, and that's why they are fighting the government. And also that Al Qaeda and OBL are behind the uprisings.

So, can you really believe such an insane (whether actually insane, or affecting it) dude?

2/26/2011 9:38:16 AM

The military has joined the rebel forces. Gadhafi is not fighting the protesters. He is calling for the people to protect the country against the rebel thugs that are trying to bring down the government. These rebels now control over half of the country and 45,000 soldiers in the military. This is a civil war.

2/26/2011 10:30:17 AM

^ Can you please clarify whose side you are on? Your post makes it hard to figure out. I need to know before I spend more time responding to your posts.

2/26/2011 10:59:09 AM

I'm on the side of the innocent people but I question the blind assumption that Gadhafi is behind the attacks.

2/26/2011 11:02:37 AM

So you are giving the benefit of the doubt to a lunatic psychotic madman who has directed terrorism in the past, and refers to his people as vermin and cockroaches, and says the protesters' milk and coffee has been spiked by LSD and shrooms?

2/26/2011 11:04:43 AM

Hey, Saddam Hussein gassed civilians, wiped out half a million Iraqis, tortured, raped, and murdered the families of his political opponents, and created an environmental wasteland in order to eradicate a pesky minority. And that's just scratching the surface. Hussein was a million times worse than Gaddafi. Yet most people were more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

2/26/2011 12:47:44 PM

Quote :

"Yet most people were more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt."

No one ever gave him the benefit of the doubt wrt the things you mentioned. No one ever denied that he killed his own people. The benefit of the doubt was wrt WMDs. Please don't change the subject.

2/26/2011 1:09:33 PM

WMD was one of the things I mentioned.

Saddam used WMD, continuously sought WMD, maintained the capability to manufacture WMD, and thwarted all efforts to monitor his WMD programs. It's easy to dismiss all of that in retrospect. But at the time, there was absolutely no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Edited on February 26, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2011 3:06:33 PM

Let me get this straight, The E Man is arguing that there are three involved parties, which more or less include the protesters, governmental forces, and thugs trying to take over the country.

That is totally not clear enough by the posts so far, so I won't waste any more effort until someone clarifies the position further.

2/26/2011 6:45:58 PM

^^ You are trying to derail this thread. This is not about the illegal war of destruction waged upon the Iraqi people and the subsequent destruction of Iraq to such an extent that it won't be a functioning society for at least another decade. Make another thread for that.

***************************************

His son Saif al Islam is a certified lunatic and psychotic like his father, albeit not such a terrible one, at least not yet. This is a great article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/gaddafi-son-saif-al-islam-profile

Quote :

"As far back as 2002, Saif told an interviewer that Libya needed democracy. "It's policy number one for us. First thing democracy, second thing democracy, third thing democracy," Saif said, using a rhetorical technique he was to repeat last week to far more sinister effect."

Quote :

"By Thursday he was on CNN promising that the violence in his country would make Libya "stronger, more united". Saif pledged: "Libya will have a better future as one united nation. [We will] not let a bunch of terrorists control our country and our future.""

Quote :

"On Friday night, at the end of a week in which hundreds are believed to have died and Saif's credibility in the west evaporated, the man whose name means "Sword of Islam" in Arabic appeared delusional. "Everything is calm," Saif told a group of foreign journalists who had been invited to the Libyan capital. "If you hear fireworks, don't mistake it for shooting," Saif added, smiling as he greeted the press outside a luxury hotel boasting a glittering lobby and chandeliers. But the calm was unnatural. It was the quiet of empty streets that would normally be bustling on a Friday night. Saif insisted that much of the reporting was "lies" spread by a hostile media and denied claims his father's forces had bombed civilians. "We are laughing at these reports," he said, urging reporters to interview "hundreds or thousands" of people for themselves. "The biggest problem is the hostile media campaigns against us. They want to show Libya is burning, that there is a big revolution here," he said. "You are wrong. We are united. Peace is coming back to our country.""

Crazy indeed.

[Edited on February 26, 2011 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2011 6:49:07 PM

I was a bit drunk in previous posts. That is correct. There are three parties. The government claims it is not responsible for the shootings so you have to give it due thought.

Why would Gadhafi have ordered shots on crowds of people? What would that accomplish? Would that end the situation? Would that increase the power of the regime? There is absolutely no motive there.

Why would rebel forces have posed as Gadhafi mercenaries and shot on the crowds?

Would this strengthen their cause? certainly. Would this weaken Gadhafi? yes

All the motive in the world.

When armed men fired on the protesters everyone just automatically assumed it was systematically ordered by the regime, straight from Gadhafi.

2/26/2011 6:52:00 PM

Quote :

"Why would Gadhafi have ordered shots on crowds of people? What would that accomplish? Would that end the situation? Would that increase the power of the regime? There is absolutely no motive there."

You still seem to be drunk. Are you saying that what I quoted is so hard for you to fathom a tyrant dictator doing when his subjects revolt against him? I mean, are you asking for a history lesson or something?

P.S. What about the many many soldiers and pilots who have defected and say they defected because they were ordered to fire from their jets and helicopters at people and they didn't want to? Are they actors too?


[Edited on February 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2011 6:55:42 PM

Speaking of history, you should understand the concept of defectors in the military. Do you understand that of the 50,000 Libyan soldiers, only 5,000 of them "claim" to still be on the government's side?

Quote :

"P.S. What about the many many soldiers and pilots who have defected and say they defected because they were ordered to fire from their jets and helicopters at people and they didn't want to? Are they actors too?"

I doubt they are actors but if such an overwhelming % of the military has defected, why do you assume the orders came from the regime and not a high-ranking mole?

How do you know the orders were against civilians and not against the fighters who were successfully overthrowing the government in the entire eastern half of the country? If you sympathized with the rebellion, wouldn't you report that as "being asked to fire on your own people".

I'm not taking sides. I'm just saying don't make assumptions without the proper evidence. Especially when the regime has denied using violence against protesters and has no need to anyhow.

2/26/2011 7:11:44 PM

so the comment about fighting them till the last bullet was what?

2/26/2011 8:16:26 PM

In reference to the armed rebels who have taken over, torched and razed government buildings in half the country.

2/26/2011 8:20:20 PM

Quote :

"You are trying to derail this thread. This is not about the illegal war of destruction waged upon the Iraqi people and the subsequent destruction of Iraq to such an extent that it won't be a functioning society for at least another decade."

I'm not at all off topic. If Gaddafi continues with his campaign of violence against his own people, the international community will inevitably have to decide whether or not to intervene. You rightly pointed out that Gaddafi should not be given the benefit of the doubt. It will be interesting to see whether Europe and the rest of the world agree, or whether they demand that he be given the same benefit of the doubt they've spent the last eight years lamenting was not afforded to Hussein.

[Edited on February 26, 2011 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2011 9:22:21 PM

More defections complete today. The takeover of Libya by a group of virtually unknown thugs is almost complete.

2/27/2011 12:40:18 PM

^by thugs you mean virtually the entire population of the country?

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/20/in-the-land-of-the-brother-leader-2/

[Edited on February 27, 2011 at 12:58 PM. Reason : Educational reading.]

2/27/2011 12:56:49 PM

So you think the entire population is coming to power and the rebels have no agenda? This is a rebel group that has the backing of the people against a common enemy. Its not a people that are taking over theres a group of opportunistic defectors from the Gadhafi regime that are behind all of this. The people are just glad to see Gadhafi go.

I know Gadhafi is bad but I don't know how bad these thugs that will be in charge are.

2/27/2011 1:06:19 PM

Do you simply like the term thugs?

From what you are saying, it would apply to George Washington, John Adams, Jefferson etc etc.

I guess half the entire middle east will be ruled by thugs after all these revolts are over.

[Edited on February 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM. Reason : asd]

2/27/2011 2:15:09 PM

The Egypt situation is very different. The military is holding control until the elections. Its good to use the fairytale belief system but rebels typically aren't nice people.

2/27/2011 3:17:18 PM

Just like you are telling us there is no proof that Gaddafi has ordered his forces to fire on/bomb his civilians (and yes, there is no proof, only evidence), what proof do you have that people taking part in the revolt are 'thugs' and 'rebels'? That's quite insulting if in reality it is all civilians and military/police defectors who are revolting/rebelling.

Where is the proof?

2/27/2011 5:32:42 PM

There is no proof. Its all assumption.

2/28/2011 12:08:45 AM

Quote :

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Protests against the tight grip of Gulf rulers widened Sunday as riot police in Oman battled pro-democracy demonstrators in a deadly clash that sharply raised tensions in the region."

OMAN

2/28/2011 12:22:02 AM

I'm at least half-drunk right now and I can tell you with confidence that The E Man is trolling.

The situation is still scary. Even so soon after the fall of Mubarak we see protests against the interim Egyptian regime. Maybe they're going too slow, or maybe the Egyptian people have wholly unreasonable expectations of how quickly the regime should transform. It's easy to demand immediacy in a world where communication of grievances is immediate. Or, to roughly quote a book about the US Foreign Service I read recently (that I might add was written nearly a decade ago), it's a lot easier to destroy than it is to built.

There are no doubt freedom-loving people in Libya. There are no doubt certain members of the elite who are better described as opportunistic, and who have switched over to the opposition because they can read what is already written on the wall. I wouldn't call either category "thugs," but the latter (and far more likely to assume power after Muamar's ouster) might not be too far from that name, either.

2/28/2011 12:46:58 AM

^^^

Quote :

"Vowing to track down and kill protesters “house by house,” Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya tightened his grip on the capital, Tripoli, on Tuesday, but the eastern half of the country was slipping beyond his control. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23libya.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Qaddafi&st=cse

Good call, asshole. Several agencies are reporting this as well.

2/28/2011 12:58:16 AM

He was talking about killing rebels kind of like Abe. Notice the word protesters is not in quotations in that article. Show me where he said to kill protesters and you win.

2/28/2011 1:57:52 AM

I would rather point out what does make sense and what doesn't than shout troll at The E Man. Returning to the original "asking of the question", we have:

Quote :

"Why would Gadhafi have ordered shots on crowds of people? What would that accomplish? Would that end the situation? Would that increase the power of the regime? There is absolutely no motive there. Why would rebel forces have posed as Gadhafi mercenaries and shot on the crowds? Would this strengthen their cause? certainly. Would this weaken Gadhafi? yes"

Valid? Yes. It would make Glen Beck proud. But just asking the question only gets us so far, and ultimately our decisions (if you'll allow me to speak for the international community) should be guided by evidence.

As weak of an argument as this is, I believe that the reporting on Libyan events contradicts this 3rd actor theory.

My own strongest reason to reject the existence of either an invisible 3rd actor, or the idea of the rebels becoming hostile and turning on their own people, is their own statements. They've already been recognized by the international community and they seem to have clear enough goals, stating that they're aiming to establish a democracy, respect international treaties, and they've even restored order to some East Libyan cities.

The 3rd actor theory is a logically consistent one, but I don't find the evidence to be supportive enough of it. Even without one the nation could be wrecked by a well funded and well armed minority of Qaddafi fighting the rest of the nation.

2/28/2011 10:51:19 AM

is this unrest likely to spill over into Saudi Arabia and Jordan at some point, or do you all think we are seeing the last regime changes finally shake out?

2/28/2011 12:25:12 PM

Beats the shit out of me. It would have shocked me a month ago to hear of revolt in Libya or protests in North Korea.

2/28/2011 1:37:42 PM

Right now, it sounds like the countries most likely to have a government change are Yemen, Oman and Bahrain.

The protests in Jordan seem to be more about Israel than about overthrowing their government. I think it's too early to tell about Saudi Arabia.

2/28/2011 2:09:00 PM

I don't think Yemen will have a government change; they're more likely to simply disintegrate into Somali-style anarchy.

Do you think there's a chance for an overthrow of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas? I know both groups right now are turning the screws right now given how angry their people are over the ineffectiveness and squabbling of both organizations.

2/28/2011 2:34:16 PM

Civic: Emancipation
Upkeep: Low
Required tech: Democracy
Efffects: +100% growth for cottage, hamlet, village; penalty for civs without emancipation

2/28/2011 4:48:18 PM

Iraq just starting to heat up. This could really put the US in a tight spot. . .

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011224192028229471.html

2/28/2011 4:58:48 PM

Quote :

"is this unrest likely to spill over into Saudi Arabia"

The Saudi King just returned to his country after a 2-month absence recovering from a surgery, and gave his country/people a $36 billion check.

A lot of people ask me if it will ever happen in Saudi (cuz I live/work here). I tell them that it will happen in each and every country that is a dictatorship or a kingdom. However, the Gulf Arab countries would be the last Arab countries where a revolution would take place, and Saudi would be the last of the last. There are several reasons for that. Here is what I emailed a friend who asked me the same question:


1) While the suppression of dissent and human rights is as great (actually, greater) in Gulf countries as in the North African countries, the rulers in the Gulf also give a lot to their people (free scholarships to study outside, free land, etc). If people were to revolt, they can easily bribe their own people (Bahrain gave every family [or person?] a $2,600 check when the protests started). Saudi can easily give every family a $10,000 check (or a mix of land and money) if need be, to quell any future protests.

2) If the people of Gulf countries were to revolt in public, they would be met with harsher consequences than protesters were met with in Tunisia and Egypt. Think Iran... I would say, even harsher than that. There are 2 reasons for that: The ruling leaders in the Gulf have a lot more to lose if they were kicked to the curb (a whole ruling family/dynasty of thousands of princes, as opposed to just one person in power), and the security forces of the Gulf countries are more sophisticated and better equipped (thanks to the US) than those of North African countries. Furthermore, these are countries which jail bloggers who call for democracy! (look up famous cases on Google)

3) The people of the Gulf countries are or have become too soft compared to their compatriots in North Africa. Again, one of the reasons is the vastly easier life and luxury in the Gulf. I can't see many Gulf Arabs thronging to the streets to protest, even peacefully, let alone violently.


That's what I sent him. Since then, Bahrain has erupted.

Bahrain is unique among the Gulf Arab countries. It is majority Shia, but is ruled by a Sunni ruler. Trust me on this, the Bahraini royal family will never step down; the Saudis won't let it happen. Saudis (and other Gulf Arabs) [intensely] dislike and more importantly, mistrust Shias. Democracy in Bahrain would mean Shias in power, as they are the majority. No Gulf Arab king would like that.

Read this:

Saudi royal concern over growing regional unrest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12556018

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 6:00:22 PM

Maybe they will all form the UASR as a global superpower.

2/28/2011 6:02:07 PM

This is an excellent read:

Arab unrest: Winners and losers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12599515

2/28/2011 6:07:04 PM

so if you are an anti-government protester in Iraq, then you are proposing to eliminate the government and replace it with what type of government?

Quote :

"is this unrest likely to spill over into Saudi Arabia and Jordan at some point, or do you all think we are seeing the last regime changes finally shake out?"

I love talking about macro topics

Let's get to the real drivers, although ^^^ does a great job with current circumstances in the case of SA. The drivers are:

oil
demographics



There is a concept called "land export model" (LEM), which more-or-less says that when oil gets scarce (the oil rich nations start running out), then the oil-rich nations will decrease exports even FASTER than the depletion rate because prices will shoot through the roof, they will buy more stuff, and they will require more oil for their economy.

I think that the LEM just scratches the surface of a story that will play out in dozens of nations around the world in the next 10 years. Since these nations also start out poor (uneducated) and gain means, it's not surprising they run at high birth rates while their oil consumption was low, which further exasperates the explosion of the domestic economy. Obviously, the flow of money also facilitates corruption like it's going out of style because the industry employs almost none of the domestic workforce, and all proceeds are in the hands of the government. From then it's just a matter of counting your money and dividing it up - the corruption part should be self-obvious at this point.

But the tipping point that the LEM predicts is different. Before consumption passes production, there is a spike in income as the price of crude oil balloons (provided the nation is in line with the global decline, which they are, although Egypt is less-so). Eventually, although oil is is very expensive they can't meet their own needs and it's no longer a cash inflow.

I don't know if anyone had predicted that revolts or democracy would come into the picture at the pinch point. But I think this has one important bearing on the current discussion:

If a nation doesn't revolt yet - it's time will come. The leaders are unlikely to hold power to the conclusion of the LEM and peak oil itself. We're only dealing with the front-end of the LEM right now, but Saudi Arabia's leaders will be desperate at the back end of the LEM when their nation no longer produces enough oil to even support itself. Oil production becomes insufficient, then cash runs out. I don't care what the nation looks like now, when the cash is gone, the state fails.

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 6:25 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 6:24:51 PM

Gaddafi has gone is mad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12603259

Libya protests: Gaddafi says 'all my people love me'

Quote :

"Col Muammar Gaddafi denies there is any fighting on the streets of Tripoli Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has told the BBC he is loved by all his people and has denied there have been any protests in Tripoli. Col Gaddafi said that his people would die to protect him."

Quote :

"When asked whether he would resign, he said he could not step down as he did not have an official position and insisted that the power was with the people. Col Gaddafi challenged those, including UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who have accused him of having money abroad, to produce evidence. He said he would "put two fingers in their eye". Col Gaddafi said true Libyans had not demonstrated but those who had come on to the streets were under the influence of drugs supplied by al-Qaeda."

Click link to hear part of the interview... he is... just... weird.



^ Thanks for that, it seems like I already knew the stuff, but in layman's terms. Thanks, I learned something new!


[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 6:42 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 6:41:01 PM

Quote :

"The people of the Gulf countries are or have become too soft compared to their compatriots in North Africa. Again, one of the reasons is the vastly easier life and luxury in the Gulf. I can't see many Gulf Arabs thronging to the streets to protest, even peacefully, let alone violently. "

Is there any possibility that the large immigrant worker population would get tired of putting up with their shit and take to the street? They sure as shit haven't gone soft, and they've got plenty of grievances. That would also be an interesting case -- a government overthrown by residents who weren't even citizens.

2/28/2011 8:15:48 PM

Yeah I don't expect any gulf nations to be overthrown. Al Jazeera English seems pretty legit, but Al Jazeera Arabic is the Fox News of the middle east. They were a driving force in the Egyption revolution, but they barely covered the unrest in Bahrain, because they have more to lose when it's in their neighborhood and their financiers are threatened.

2/28/2011 9:41:36 PM

^ One problem is that they don't have rights.

Otherwise, I don't think that their numbers are great enough, I think that they could be quashed by police or military, and killing them won't cause the same outrage among the citizens.

2/28/2011 9:44:03 PM

Quote :

"a government overthrown by residents who weren't even citizens."

Ah yes, World History. You are referring to the Slave Kings of the 9th century Middle East. The armies of the region consisted primarily of eastern European slaves kidnapped as children and forced through exacting military training. As they trained their whole life to be the best warriors, they propagated up the chain of command becoming the regions best generals and body guards, and ultimately making one of their own Sultan. Good stuff.

3/1/2011 2:59:28 AM

GrumpyGOP, good question. I will answer later as I have to go teach a class now.

In the meantime, check this out:

http://saudijeans.org/2011/02/28/saudi-reform-petitions/

(Dude has a pretty good blog... he is one of the best young bloggers, liberal and justice-seeking)

3/1/2011 8:36:46 AM

I have some more burning big picture questions... burning.

One, is a faithful democracy always subject to government change given a strong shift in attitudes of the citizens? Consider the following cases:
- Japan
- The US
- Iraq

Japan recently CHANGED their government through the exact process that it was designed to happen - they were unsatisfied with the job that was being done and they elected new leadership (a tectonic shift not seen in 60 years). This was a 2008 event and I am hard pressed to think of a better example of an "anti-government" movement producing results through democratic channels. I'm being slightly obtuse here, because I should call this "anti-leadership" because the government remains in tact no matter who is in power. But a critical issue is that Japan didn't solve it's problems. It was out with the old boss, in with the new. SOME measures were taken to address corruption and pork barrel spending, and rightfully so, but the harder issues remain, which include pesky things such as stagnant wages and bitter unemployment.

I'm tempted to write off the modern US as being immune to a 2008-Japan movement. The political parties have institutionalized so much, and the electorate college is an indisputably undemocratic system that stifles 3rd parties due to simple mathematics. People get "fed up" and then campaign for Republicans. Has the branding and structuring of our system allowed a political duopoly to exist truly and completely unopposed? Is the US really immune from both political and violent revolutions now? It seems like there are too many things in favor of the institution, not least of which being the last major violent revolution (the civil war) that is conveniently conflated with the moral question of slavery that favored on the side of our national political system, as corrupt as it was.

In Iraq demonstrators on the street have staged "anti-government" protests, but they ARE a democracy! Has the possibility of an election based revolution been ruled out by past experiences and failures? On top of that, the dissatisfaction comes almost entirely from the "hard" problems IMO. Yes, there are infrastructure issues that the government has failed them on (as well as the US), but food inflation? How well is corruption in government associated with the problems of the average person? I really can't say.


Two, what is the meaning of protesting and demanding change based on:
- Jobs, unemployment, wages
- Food and living costs?

Obviously, there are things that a government can't do, but obviously, there are plenty of people depending on their government to get by, and they will be the first ones on the street in protest. Another interesting example is that of China, where I've heard people refer to the situation as a truce between the government and people in that as long as there are jobs the people will be complacent with the government's corruption. If jobs are gone, the deal is off. I think that all governments are in some kind of middle-ground between promising the people economic prosperity and also avoiding intervention in the economy so that spending power and job stability can be passed off as something in the hands of the people themselves.

One of my personal beliefs is that libertarians are living in a dream world. ALL tax codes are ambiguous. Anyone who really understands depreciation and inflation gets this. Government will always be affecting the economy, and a better government can always create a better economy. But an angry majority is hopeless at the task of optimizing government tax and monetary policy aside from fixing blindingly obvious examples of corruption that are sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. Food inflation, on the other hand, as well as employment, can not be fixed by the same means. Only a improved technology, competent leadership, and an egalitarian upbringing and education system can address those issues. So I guess what I'm saying is "give up".

3/1/2011 11:57:28 AM

I suppose this is the appropriate thread:

The (former?) Libyan ambassador to the United States, who defected from Qaddafi's regime early on in the protests, is calling for international military action against Gaddafi, including air strikes against artillery positions and the implementation of a no-fly zone.

Quote :

"Aujali strongly supported the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, calling it "a historic responsibility for the United States." He also criticized the arguments about the risks of no-fly zone, which have been made by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other military officials. "When we say, for example, that the no-fly zone will take a long time, that it is complicated -- please don't give this regime any time to crush the Libyan people," he said. The ambassador, who began his diplomatic career four decades ago, raised the flag of the Libyan opposition over the ambassador's residence in Washington after resigning last week. He told Foreign Policy that he decided to resign following Saif al-Qaddafi's speech on Feb. 21, in which Qaddafi's favored son warned protesters of "rivers of blood" if they did not cease their demonstrations. Aujali warned that further delay in organizing an international response raised the risk that Qaddafi would be able to reconstitute his strength. "Time means losing lives, time means that Qaddafi will regain control," he said. "He has weapons, he has rockets with about 450 kilometers' distance, and we have to protect the people. These mercenaries now are everywhere.""

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/04/libyan_ambassador_the_us_must_do_more_to_stop_qaddafi_s_massacre

[Edited on March 5, 2011 at 8:37 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2011 8:36:43 AM

and Charles Krauthammer weighs in...on point..per usual

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261278/baghdad-benghazi-charles-krauthammer

Quote :

"Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Qaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance, and imperialism. A strange moral inversion, considering that Saddam’s evil was an order of magnitude beyond Qaddafi’s. Qaddafi is a capricious killer; Saddam was systematic. Qaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture, and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a Republic of Fear."

3/5/2011 10:54:42 AM

Whose voices?

3/5/2011 11:35:10 AM

^^ there’s nothing on point there except for him saying we should do more to help. Outside of that, that guy seems pretty blindingly ignorant of the facts of history.

3/5/2011 11:44:50 AM

If some country were to intervene in Libya, it's hard to see a success path.

3/5/2011 11:51:43 AM