They just don't get it...
19/3/11 17:45![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt turns out that a British diplomat turned up at the border and asked to be taken to rebel commanders in Libya. he had with him a detail from the SAS, a crack British Special Forces outfit, similar to the American Delta Force, only with stiffer upper lips and no chewing gum to hand out.
Anyways, the Libyan commanders didn't ask for, and didn't want any forign troops involved in what they see as 'their' struggle against Gaddaffi. So they captured the SAS guys and threw them into the brig, only releasing them unharmed once they had got the british diplomat out of their country.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/05/libyan-rebels-capture-british-sas-unit/
So, there you have it. The Libyans are asking for a UN backed intervention in their struggle.
They want the UN , not the UK or the USA to send in any ground troops.
Seeing as if the rebels win, they are going to have to go to their own people and say that' we are not the sellouts to Western Powers like Gaddaffi was ( remember that the jets and tanks he is currently using to murder his own people were supplied by the same people who want to start an invasion) - well , i think it is only fair that they should be the ones who set the terms on how Gaddaffi is otten rid of. Ok, he has to go, nd his own people are the ones to take him down.
Ii don't see the military dictators and undemocratic despots who rule Arab League countries being very enthusiastic about establishing a bit more democracy in the world , somehow - esp. in a place like Libya.
And that leaves the UN. So, what is the UN for? UK/USA forces have basically been acting like the military wing of their countries corporate interests of late. i don't blame the Libyans for telling the SAS that they were unwelcome.
I do think that the Libyans have every right to appeal to the international community, via the UN , which pledges itself to uphold human rights , to which they belong , to give them a hand by way of enforcing a no fly zone and supporting the Libyan Ground forces with airstrikes on Gaddaffis mercenaries, together with his tanks and artillery.
I am suprised that the UK Government didn't get it that the age of gunboat diplomacy is over, but what else can we expect of ex public schoolboys like 'Call Me Dave'? Cameron and his cronies in the British foriegn office 'just don't get it' - but I hope that someone out there in the wider world does, and does what the rebels are begging the international community to give them without delay.
But if you disagree with the idea of airstrikes, and the Libyans are not going to co operate with any foriegn troops that they regard as 'invaders', then what role or position do we want the UN to adopt here? It has been said in this community that ' this is not what the UN is for - well, ok, what should it be doing instead?
Anyways, the Libyan commanders didn't ask for, and didn't want any forign troops involved in what they see as 'their' struggle against Gaddaffi. So they captured the SAS guys and threw them into the brig, only releasing them unharmed once they had got the british diplomat out of their country.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/05/libyan-rebels-capture-british-sas-unit/
So, there you have it. The Libyans are asking for a UN backed intervention in their struggle.
They want the UN , not the UK or the USA to send in any ground troops.
Seeing as if the rebels win, they are going to have to go to their own people and say that' we are not the sellouts to Western Powers like Gaddaffi was ( remember that the jets and tanks he is currently using to murder his own people were supplied by the same people who want to start an invasion) - well , i think it is only fair that they should be the ones who set the terms on how Gaddaffi is otten rid of. Ok, he has to go, nd his own people are the ones to take him down.
Ii don't see the military dictators and undemocratic despots who rule Arab League countries being very enthusiastic about establishing a bit more democracy in the world , somehow - esp. in a place like Libya.
And that leaves the UN. So, what is the UN for? UK/USA forces have basically been acting like the military wing of their countries corporate interests of late. i don't blame the Libyans for telling the SAS that they were unwelcome.
I do think that the Libyans have every right to appeal to the international community, via the UN , which pledges itself to uphold human rights , to which they belong , to give them a hand by way of enforcing a no fly zone and supporting the Libyan Ground forces with airstrikes on Gaddaffis mercenaries, together with his tanks and artillery.
I am suprised that the UK Government didn't get it that the age of gunboat diplomacy is over, but what else can we expect of ex public schoolboys like 'Call Me Dave'? Cameron and his cronies in the British foriegn office 'just don't get it' - but I hope that someone out there in the wider world does, and does what the rebels are begging the international community to give them without delay.
But if you disagree with the idea of airstrikes, and the Libyans are not going to co operate with any foriegn troops that they regard as 'invaders', then what role or position do we want the UN to adopt here? It has been said in this community that ' this is not what the UN is for - well, ok, what should it be doing instead?
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/11 21:18 (UTC)Correction: PART of his people no longer want him in charge. But of course PART of YOUR people don't want Cameron in charge either. So what do we do now?
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/11 21:42 (UTC)Next question please.
it may seem a superficial difference to some, but we are going to have a referendum in the UK soon about how we are going to hold our next election - should we keep FPTP or switch to AV instead.
In Libya, they don't get any sort of democratic representation whatsoever. fo many decades , I believe.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/11 22:00 (UTC)Where were you all those years when your governments were trading weapons for oil with Gaddafi? He was suppressing his people during all this time. Why didn't you bomb him then?
So you care about people's freedom. Why aren't you bombing Saudi Arabia and Bahrain then?
Who's to decide what the people of Libya want? You?
That you don't see the hypocrisy in your own statements and this typical British paternalism radiating from every word is stunning.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/11 22:36 (UTC)It is a fair and honest question and deserves a straight answer.
I voted Labour for most of my life, and mainly stood against the arms trade, and was pro democractic and human rights.
However, the first time I stood as a candidate for local office , i was the only anti-war candidate on the sheet.
It was my dissatisfaction with Labour Party policies that led me to join the Greens and stand for National office iin 2010, and libya was not an issue then . it is now, though and i want to make it clear that I support the idea of britain committing to suport the UN resolution for a no fly zone and for airstrikes in support of the rebels in Libya who want to depose a tyrant.
He was suppressing his people during all this time. Why didn't you bomb him then?
I agree that we should have taken a tougher line against gaddaffi from the moment his people murdered Yvonne Fletcher. I also condemn the previous administartions support to all dictators, military and otherwise everywhere. Including those in Barain, Saudi Arabia and anywhere else where the government denies basic rights such as democratic representation to all it's adult citizens.
Why aren't you bombing Saudi Arabia and Bahrain then? Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars on their own or have the same rights as men - however, they are not asking other countries to send in airstrikes or prevent government planes attacking them.
My position , basically, is that we cannot make change happen for people, but we can do what they are asking us to do. back in the 80s, Desmond Tutu asked me , as a Uk citizen to boycott South African goods. Margeret Thatcher said this was going to hurt the people we were trying to help, but i went with tutu as being the legitimate voice of the oppressed.
Today , I regard the rebel leaders as the legitimate voice of the Libyan dissedents, and they are asking for airstrikes. I personally , do not see Gaddaffi as having any legitimate claim to speak for Libyans - any more than i saw thatcher as having a legitimate claim to speak for black South Africans.
You may disagree with my reasonings, but plese don't accuse me of hypocrisy.
I have disagreed with the British government's foriegn policy consistently over the years, and to imply that one labour voting brit has agreed with everything a British government has done ( especially when foreign policy was being set by the tories) is very simplistic, if I may say so.
The fact is, the rebels are not fighting among themselves , but are united at present against gaddaffi. they are also united in calling for international support. i want to say that I agree that they should recieve it.
(no subject)
Date: 19/3/11 22:49 (UTC)You may've been anti-war and anti-intervention, but now you're pro-war and pro-intervention. That's rather ironic.
If I form a rebel group and ask you to bomb Sofia because I hate Sofians, would you do that for me please? No? I'm not legitimate enough? Am I not people? Based on what criteria do you define what group of people becomes a legitimate speaker for the whole people?
Boycott is indirect action. It's not like bombing cities.
Saying the people of Libya are free to take a decision about their own future, and then actively taking a side in the conflict, are two things that don't go together very well. That I call hypocrisy.
Your criteria for defining who's the legitimate speaker for this people or the other sounds arbitrary at best. Especially given the fact we're still lacking relible info about who's standing behind the two feuding sides. It's a naive, simplistic and consequently, dangerous approach. And very short-sighted.
I may hate Gaddafi too with all my passion, as I've shown through numerous posts here and elsewhere, and I may agree that the international community should have taken a much, MUCH firmer stance towards him a long time ago when it was early enough and before the shit really started smelling - instead of playing nice and doing good business with him and turning a blind eye to his tyranny for the sake of their egoistical economic interests. But I also equally hate hypocrisy and double-tongue games, punches under the belt and stabs in the back. Just call a spade a spade. Just say your guys are going into Libya in pursuit of their own economic and geopolitical interests, and we can move on with this conversation. Until then, I call hypocrisy.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 00:14 (UTC)Ok, so Cameron and co. are doing this out of purely self interest? Yeah , I can buy that.
but at the end of the day, if the Libyan people , who wanted rid of gaddaffi decades ago, are going to get a better chance as a result, I am still happy.
The debate turns now on what happens next . Who is who in the 'Rebel Alliance' that opposes Gaddaffi?
Is this all happening too late, or can they hang on and redouble their efforts? Is the air war going topple gaddaffi , or just have him mad at us and seeking revenge?
we shall have to wait and see, it seems.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 00:30 (UTC)Don't you think this a question that needed to be answered before you made up your mind on supporting them? What makes your decision to support them better than those who chose the replacements for other bad regimes replaced with equally bad or worse regimes?
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 15:36 (UTC)I think the answer to your second question is
Some of the people we put in power in the past were just that, placemen and puppets of the Western Powers.
What i want to see happen is that the West gives the Libyans in revolt to opporunity to take out gaddaffi and put in someone of their own choosing.
(no subject)
Date: 21/3/11 01:38 (UTC)Yes, Kadaffi is an insane dictator. That doesn't by extension make the opposition any better. We know from experience that to be true. But you've made up your mind that whatever it might be, it can't be worse. It can always be worse and you don't seem to care if what you want ends up actually being better. All I hear is, is that we "must" go, as a collective act of martyrdom.
(no subject)
Date: 21/3/11 07:57 (UTC)Woah ! Who said anything about anybody having a ' clear picture'?
The details are sketchy. Like you said, this blew up out of nowhere only recently. but what we do have is a dictator in power for over 40 yrs suddenly taking someone into custody and that sparked a riot that turned into a civil war, by all accounts. When his own military are ordered to fire on demonstrators, a couple of jet pilots disobey orders and take their planes to Malta and claim political asylum.
His assetts have been frozen by Western Governments and other leaders are saying openly that gaddaffi ought to step down. I mean , the situation is volatile, but I think I see a popular uprising here, and I think we should be supporting them rather than helping Gaddaffi. Sitting on our hands and letting them die *is* helping Gaddaffi.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 00:41 (UTC)Be my guest (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/918494.html).
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 01:24 (UTC)IT'S A TRAP!
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 01:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 02:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 02:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 13:37 (UTC)but they do seem to be in a similar position. A bunch of disparate heroes up against the Dark Lord of the Sith( no, I don't mean desperate, but mmaybe they are that as well).
good luck to them anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 02:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 15:39 (UTC)i am not filled with hope on reading it.
however, i think we have to give them a chance to take gaddaffi down .
Not put in a proxy for the western powers,
not leave him to kiill the civilians revolting against his rule
Just let them have a fair chance at taking him on and putting in their own replacement.
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 17:57 (UTC)On the other hand, i agree that keeping Gaddafi in power was not a better option either. Its all a lose-lose situation either way.