a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

I guess shooting down a helicopter hovering 50 ft above a crowd in Tripoli pretty much = fucking mess.

well shooting down helicopter at any point is a mess
it being hovering 50ft above a crowd is even worse
it happening in Libya just makes it Tripoli so.

Guilty laugh. Also at Gaddafi turning up today looking like a human statue.

so his transformation into Michael Jackson is complete

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/us-korea-north-campaign-idUSTRE71O0SM20110225

^^NK won't rise up. This is just more of the regular, ongoing chaffing betwen SK and NK, nothing more.

I suspect that people from the far south of Libya probably have a "sub saharan" appearence.

Toubou ppl from the Southeast part of Libya are black.

Hitchens hamstrung here by his neocon past: USA! USA!

http://www.slate.com/id/2286522/

This commenter OTM:

Perhaps Obama is a little reluctant to meddle in any way since precisely zero percent of our past meddlings in Arab/Middle-Eastern government affairs have led to beneficial results and there's nothing to indicate things will be different this time. As for our vaunted sea/air power, 1) just how fast does Hitch think warships move? and 2) put them within 12 miles of Libyan coastline, or form a blockade, and you've just invaded Libya and 3) enter Libyan airspace without permission, even with humanitarian supplies, and you've just invaded Libya. At least that's what Moammar will say and then he'll start shooting at us, and things won't go much better for the people on the ground who get to be recast from patriotic protesters to the fifth column of the American invaders.

Someone from White House announcing that the US is imposing sanctions on Libya.

The sanctions themselves are still being finalized.

Meanwhile Libyan State TV says the whole crisis is over LOL

Libyan TV reports that the regime has been in talks with "the misguided youth", who "have been handing over their weapons and joining the mass marches alongside the brother and leader of the revolution".

smh

Hey, it was worth a try, y'know. Costs nothing to try.

Kahdahfy

Hitchens hamstrung here by his neocon past: USA! USA!

http://www.slate.com/id/2286522/

This commenter OTM:

Perhaps Obama is a little reluctant to meddle in any way since precisely zero percent of our past meddlings in Arab/Middle-Eastern government affairs have led to beneficial results and there's nothing to indicate things will be different this time. As for our vaunted sea/air power, 1) just how fast does Hitch think warships move? and 2) put them within 12 miles of Libyan coastline, or form a blockade, and you've just invaded Libya and 3) enter Libyan airspace without permission, even with humanitarian supplies, and you've just invaded Libya. At least that's what Moammar will say and then he'll start shooting at us, and things won't go much better for the people on the ground who get to be recast from patriotic protesters to the fifth column of the American invaders.

― DL, Friday, February 25, 2011 6:26 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

nah. hitch nailed it.

Perhaps Obama is a little reluctant to meddle in any way since precisely zero percent of our past meddlings in Arab/Middle-Eastern government affairs have led to beneficial results and there's nothing to indicate things will be different this time.

the usual stuff really. the middle east would be the benelux were it not for the meddling yanks. let em duke it out, im sure it'll be fine.

As for our vaunted sea/air power, 1) just how fast does Hitch think warships move?

about 30 knots? the US has a fleet in the med. this is a poor point 1.

2) put them within 12 miles of Libyan coastline, or form a blockade, and you've just invaded Libya and 3) enter Libyan airspace without permission, even with humanitarian supplies, and you've just invaded Libya.

ok, and...

At least that's what Moammar will say and then he'll start shooting at us, and things won't go much better for the people on the ground who get to be recast from patriotic protesters to the fifth column of the American invaders.

call me an armchair general, but i do feel that being shot at is the cost of doing business, 'having a massive navy/air force'-wise. i may well be a blowhard, but i think the US could take them. this last bit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. i see the danger of US involvement pissing some libyans off, of course. but the colonel is relying on foreign mercenaries, isn't he? i agree it's the most serious point. some libyans, in future, might wonder why obama was so mealy-mouthed about all this, however.

Well, hasn't one rationalization of these strong-arm dictators been that without them, their respective countries would fall into sectarian violence as old tribal grievances are aired? No reason to believe that won't happen.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, February 25, 2011 5:25 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

the realists were right all along? im not saying the viewpoint had nothing going for it -- iraq didn't make a whole lot of sense as a polity. but it was useful cover for some really shady alliances. i think it a token of secular humanist optimism that one believes tribal bullshit is pretty easily superseded, however.

well here's one think tank laying out the case

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3313

sorry hm but I really don't see any plausible/practical way the US could effectively intervene militarily here. what do you think they should do exactly? bomb Tripoli? shoot down helicopters? invade? get behind an amorphous rebellion composed of who knows what elements? come on now.

he's a monster, his people hate him, just help them a little bit, knock the guy off, what could go wrong...

i'm in favor of doing anything and everything up to the point of direct military engagement in this. i might change my mind, but idk, just seems like the best option we have right now.

i've seen two interviews with libyans in the past two days who were in the shit (one npr, the other cnn) and both wanted more from the US specifically, that's not nothing.

US already tried to assassinate Col Q once y'know. didn't work out so well iirc

Have you seen our drones recently, Shakey? It's the reliable intelligence on his whereabouts that would be the problem.

I hear our drones are great for weddings and parties. Michael Jackson look-a-likes, eh not so much

Man, I just imagined a no-fly-zone of the future where a swarm of mini drones could take out helicopters anonymously.

The U.S. doesn't have a whole lot of options, but slapping sanctions on Libya just seems so feeble and inapt. The country is embroiled in a brutal battle for its immediate future - I don't think stopping imports of iPods is going to have a dramatic effect.

This is really something the AU or the EU should deal with.

^^^yeah really. you can't criticize us for playing Global Policeman and then complain when we don't do a good enough job of it

(the food here is terrible - I know and in such small portions, etc.)

Well, I really don't have a short-term problem with the US shooting down his helicopters but if someone needs to intervene (and I would really prefer that no-one need intervene so the Libyans can call their liberation their own), it should really be the African Union, who, alas, are always kind of busy and also loath to interfere in internal affairs. Thye'll have more moral authority and be better received. Italy has the biggest cultural and economic ties but they also have a less than stellar history with the country including 40 years as an Italian colony during the 20th century but France imnports a lot of oil from there, too.

I'm just hoping the Libyans can do this on their own.

I'm sympathetic to hm's pov which I imagine comes from an authentic concern about the ppl of Libya. But at this point in history why can't one of the many other countries in the world step up and introduce stuff in the UN and make this happen? Why does the US have to police the world alone? Let someone else get this one. We can even send some help if the UN makes a resolution and intervenes as a world community.

Why not just ask the Egyptian army to invade? Certainly they could use something to pass the time. They'll be greeted as liberators.

Right, I'm completely sympathetic to hm here on an emotional level but I think Obama's right to take the stance that this is not about the US and the question to be asked in situations like this is not always "what should the US do?" It's not well-liked, its motives are generally distrusted (especially where there's oil) and with its toxic rep in the region, any intervention is unlikely to end well. I love the idea of stepping in and putting a speedy end to this but even if it went without a hitch in the short run (I can't imagine it without accidental civilian deaths) then it would backfire to some extent in the long run.

In fact, I can't imagine a conflict that has less to do with the US than Libya. Any justification to intervene would hold for everywhere from Algeria to Zimbabwe. That's just real politik. You don't step in the middle of a Civil War for humanitarian reasons. You can't. Even an ongoing genocide, as we've seen time again, is shaky ground, alas. It's not as simple as choosing a side, not even when no one likes the antagonist.

tbh i don't feel we know that much of what's going on, not enough to actually call for a no-fly zone on the internet (pretty sure i haven't mentioned invasion, josh). im talking abt principles, really. but what is odd to me is the very low temperature of obama's words, and that's what hitch is picking up on. the future is indeed pretty uncertain in libya, from what i can tell.

but if there's reason to fear the worst (as some of you seem to be: it's an inchoate revolution, things could get tribal...) then is it not the job of 'the international community'/the UN/the US to try to stack the deck in favour of the least worst option? that doesn't mean sending in the marines, but i think the hour calls for more than obama is giving.

the 'leaders' -- BIG fuck-off scare-quotes -- of the rising in benghazi seem to be, like, the chief of the local bar association etc. ie the classic revolutionary. i take that as a good sign.

But at this point in history why can't one of the many other countries in the world step up and introduce stuff in the UN and make this happen?

most countries are too poor and don't have a meaningful military, or don't care particularly / aren't world powers. russia and china -- you can do the punchline. the uk no longer has a navy and is overcommitted already. you're kind of left with france or germany as the only contenders.

have to say it's funny having american bros tell an englishman that revolutionaries shd be left to it...

acc. to FB friend in egypt, masked armed forces are dispering ppl in tahrir right now? (it's past curfew)

not good

A Nation magazine columnist says why he opposes a no-fly zone:

It’s dangerous: Like the no-fly zone in Iraq from 1991–2003, the enforcement of such a policy would be run by the United States and its junior partner, the British. It means war: a no-fly zone is worthless unless the United States is prepared to back it up with overwhelming military force.

It’s not needed: it isn’t clear that Libyan pilots are willing to bomb their own citizens. And, the revolution playing out in Libya isn’t likely to go on for months, or even weeks. Either Muammar Qaddafi surrenders or falls, or (far less likely) he somehow recovers to take control

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158818/against-no-fly-zone-libya

foreignpolicy.com on the pros and cons of a no-fly zone

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/24/act_now

Anderson Cooper quoted someone as saying Gadhafi's troops in Tripoli were using machine guns on little kids carrying rocks.

Just make sure they weren't raping any Belgian nuns in the lulls between bursts of fire.

OK. Atrocities are always possible, I'd even say close to a certainty, in these situations. So are rumors. It's just good to remember how little we actually know until it is verified from multiple sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/africa/27libya.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

An increasingly gruesome picture began to emerge Saturday of the violent tactics used by the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to quell protesters in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, with several witnesses confirming that forces loyal to the government had been shooting people from ambulances and using antiaircraft guns against crowds.
...
A precise death toll might be impossible. Omar said that friends who were doctors at a hospital in Tripoli saw bodies being removed from the morgue to conceal the death toll. Local residents told him that the bodies were being taken to beaches and burned.

That sounds about right.

This is all horrible, but confirmation that Qaddafi is an absolute monster almost seems tragically redundant. Sure, he oppresses his people, yes, he's a megalomaniac dictator, granted he occasionally funds terrorist groups to blow up planes and bars and, oh yeah, he voluntarily stopped a secret WMD program, thus revealing that he had a secret WMD program. But shoot on his own people? In the most evil and ruthless manner possible? Who would have thought it?

BreakingNews Breaking News
British military planes enter Libyan air space in daring rescue of more than 150 civilians from desert locations http://on.msnbc.com/dLiQU1
1 minute ago

dayum

'enter Libyan airspace without permission, even with humanitarian supplies, and you've just invaded Libya.' - a blogger

ruh-roh

http://grab.by/9aVR

in toronto^ btw

http://grab.by/9aW6

im interested in this shoe symbolism - ive heard its a sign of disrespect but it seems to have taken on a more specific meaning in the context of these protests - or maybe its been like that all along idk

In Africa and the middle east, it's considered rude/disrespectful to show the soles of the feet - this is a notion that predates Islam. So extrapolating from there, lobbing shoes at someone with a shit-ton of power is how to show you really have nothing left for that person and you certainly don't respect them.

http://s.buzzfeed.com/raw/bush-shoe-throw/bush-shoe-throw-03.gif

i get that suzy, but 'leave by the shoe' on that sign implies that its taken on if not a new meaning a somewhat more iconic or embodied one or something