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

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

shoe power, if you will

they're going to kick him out, with their shoes

theyre going to shoe him whos boss

being a terrible dictator is a bootable offense

lol...guys

my favorite part of the gif is the guy taking off his other shoe to throw it

one nice thing i'll say about W is his reactions were pretty impressive there

my least favorite part is how easily and competently bush doges it

probably was just having a good day tho, once you consider katrina xp

you would think his second dodge would be lower than his first dodge, but I guess he already figured out it was just a shoe

that first throw was really on target - woulda caught him right in the schnozz if he wasnt looking

i'm assuming that poor guy was brought out to the back and shot on the spot, unfortuantely

naw hes still around, heard they just temp locked him up again preemptively via worrying postests would get out of hand in iraq, guess hes some sort of agitator

still alive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntadar_al-Zaidi

There were calls throughout the Middle East to place the shoes in an Iraqi museum,[4] but the shoes were later destroyed by American and Iraqi security forces.[5] Al-Zaidi's shoeing inspired many similar incidents of political protest around the world.[6][7]

naw hes still around, heard they just temp locked him up again preemptively via worrying postests would get out of hand in iraq, guess hes some sort of agitator

― ice cr?m, Saturday, February 26, 2011 4:24 PM (12 minutes ago)

so glad we brought western values to this country!

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

If you go into a mosque, you have to take your shoes off, but you can't have them soles-down on the floor. You have to put the two soles together and leave them like that.

USA USA!! xp

huh. usually i had someone put my shoes away for me.

xpost

If you go into a mosque, you have to take your shoes off, but you can't have them soles-down on the floor. You have to put the two soles together and leave them like that.

― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, February 26, 2011 9:46 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

maybe in some places but, really, no

i heard that to enter a mosque you had to kill one (1) christian child

it's 3, max