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

dude is gonna get aced

been off the net for 12 whole hours and... dang. didn't really expect this.

So basically the world (via the UN) just declared war on Qaddafi, right? Because the second a plane enters Libyan territory, Qaddafi will order that plane shot at. And then what? Whomever is flying the plane will take offensive action. And by the way, who will be flying those planes on behalf of the UN?

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, March 18, 2011 12:57 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

ehh sort of but no. the US is not at war with pakistan, it just launches weapons into its territory. ditto somalia.

ehh sort of but no. the US is not at war with pakistan, it just launches weapons into its territory. ditto somalia.

you've gotta put some heavy scare quotes around "war" to make this statement anywhere near true

x-post Yeah, but the Pakistani army is not threatening to shoot down American planes, and we are there at the tacit, under the table invitation of the government. And there's no no-fly zone over Somalia, is there? Even Saddam didn't threaten to fight back, did he?

That said, if Qaddafi goes total war on the world, I put my money on the world. Though this does set an awkward precedent for the rest of the region, Arab League support or no.

Though this does set an awkward precedent for the rest of the region, Arab League support or no.

yeah i don't really understand how this works. dooooon't really see anyone telling saudi arabia to back off in bahrain.

^ the one time i will ever otm history mayne

take it back imo. it'd be pretty deep never to have been otm'd by BIG HOOS.

haha

That whole Gaddafi quote is o_0

""This is craziness, madness, arrogance. If the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy too.

"We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace."

http://www.noquickriches.com/storage/Gaddafi.jpg
If the world is crazy, we will be crazy too.
- 6.4 million people were under the sway of this man till one month ago

I do feel that image could use a bit of Z S magic.

clayface.jpg

that image is terrifying
he looks like he just completed White Castle's King of Beef challenge in record time

bobdylan.jpg

I tried to stitch it unto a Prince & the Revolution cover but gave up. My GIMP-fu is weak.

Shit I just had a weird deja vu.

http://www.aggrogate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/dejavu3.jpg

GUN1 indeed

when you again realize...it's DEJA VU!

That whole Gaddafi quote is o_0

""This is craziness, madness, arrogance. If the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy too.

― bad voise, it sucked, pick a seat (Trayce), Friday, March 18, 2011 2:55 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

who you tryin to get crazy with ese? don't you know I'm loco

One reason I hope this works is to prove guys like this wrong about Obama's strategy:

http://www.slate.com/id/2288595/

Because circumventing the UN worked out so well in Iraq.

I really don't understand what is going on here.

I have to assume that somebody in the_west has cut - or thinks they have cut - a deal with a player in Eastern Libya who they think will prove to be a more dependable spigot-warden than Ghadafi. I don't know.

From that Spitzer article:

The Arab League has passed a resolution supporting a no-fly zone. The French

have recognized the opposition government as the legitimate government of Libya and have spoken in favor of military action in support of the opposition.

Fuck off and die, creep.

Er-

The Arab League has passed a resolution supporting a no-fly zone. The French - the French - have recognized the opposition government as the legitimate government of Libya and have spoken in favor of military action in support of the opposition.

Like I said.

Heh, "spigot-warden".

again, not rly sure what you're getting at. any libyan government will depend on selling oil. it's part of opec. i guess it might leave opec? but why would it? what do you think the_west has to be scared of, viz libyan oil? that they'll stop selling it? i think the US has been trying to get a sense of who the rebels are and what they'll do, but again, why wouldn't they? it's a hell of a gamble, there's no democratic infrastructure there, and if the rebel leadership is able to capture popular resentment of gadaffi, it doesn't necessarily follow that it represents the popular will.

xpost

meanwhile, i dimly remember those far-away days of january when slavoj zizek was hymning the egyptian revolution. seems remarkably quiescent on the attempt to remove gadaffi. odd.

Well Iraq was part of OPEC too.

God I used to sort of like Spitzer but he sounds like such a tool in that article. I think his year of punditry has already turned his brain to jelly.

all i mean by that is, libya can't use its oil as leverage that easily, can it? idk entirely but they don't have that much, they're part of a cartel, and they need the cash.

Largest proven oil reserves in Africa IIRC. And it's not just about selling and buying on the markets it's about who gets to do the exploration, who holds the rights to the wells. Shell has a lot at stake there now.

Also I think oil is not the fungible cash-like thing it is so often made out to be. There are side-deals, secret deals, backroom deals cut all the time.

the ticker says the libyan military is calling a ceasefire

on oil, tracer, what's your ideal organization for the sale and distribution of this noxious, planet-destroying shit?

Immediate ceasefire. So how are you going to get rid of Gaddafi now?

send a crack SAS team to pull his tent pegs out.

SAS can't even outwit the local farmers

on oil, tracer, what's your ideal organization for the sale and distribution of this noxious, planet-destroying shit?

Don't really know where you're going with this TBH

So what does this ceasfire mean? Libya has said it's stopping "all military activity"

on oil, tracer, what's your ideal organization for the sale and distribution of this noxious, planet-destroying shit?

Don't really know where you're going with this TBH

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, March 18, 2011 1:07 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark

same! you were saying that it wasn't in the US interest to intervene because to do so would upset the oil trade. then that the US must have received an undertaking from the rebels that the oil wells will remain in the hands of big oil. which is of course absolutely awful, but i am asking what would be the best outcome?

you seem to be against intervention unless the US takes absolutely no interest in what happens on the other side, and this seems naive or plain odd. i obviously agree that the oil industry is terrible in pretty much every way. a good-ish outcome would be a free and democratic and law-bound libya retaining more of the revenue and spreading the wealth. (probably better not to be dependent on oil though.)

i doubt US involvement will result in all of that. but i guess im asking how it could come about, if US involvement is ruled out on grounds it is too beholden to the oil industry.

I was saying that the Libyan opposition is a big can of worms that the US would probably prefer not to have to think about, given everything else that's going on. But it seems that the calculus has changed.

I'm against intervention by the US because nobody takes the US seriously as a neutral arbiter anymore (if they ever did). We blew that forever in 2003. A UN-mandated force that doesn't include the US or, like, Italy, might have a chance of doing some good. But I have no idea really.

A UN-mandated force that doesn't include the US or, like, Italy, might have a chance of doing some good

But includes the UK?!?!?

So what does this ceasfire mean? Libya has said it's stopping "all military activity"

I hope it means that we don't get to watch various journalists getting a 24 hour rolling hard-on the minute they get close to some military hardware.

I'm against intervention by the US because nobody takes the US seriously as a neutral arbiter anymore (if they ever did).

i just don't think there's ever any such thing, at all, ever. im not even sure what a neutral arbiter is. the UN isn't one: it has a very clear conception of human rights, for example. (im also not entirely clear on the identity of the paragons making this judgement.)

and it obviously has to depend on member states to back up its mandates. and none of them have spotless hands. or at least, the countries with the capacity to enforce mandates do not.

the african union, arab league, brazil, india, etc, have all been touted by pro-intervention, anti-american types over the last few weeks, but none of them seem to have stepped up.

ceasefire announcement is crazy. Capital Q either buying time or willing to negotiate...? wtf

Why is it crazy?

If Gaddafi acts like a good boy and follows UN Resolutions, how do the US/UK/France et al propose to get rid of him?

But includes the UK?!?!?

Well, no.

For what its worth, I've examined the actual pipeline routes around Ajdabiya, a presently contested town where pro-Gaddafi forces halted their advance toward Benghazi. These tend to run as disturbed earth parallelling roads. As far as I can tell, pro-Gaddafi forces now control virtually all territory with upstream oil infrastructure, a trump card in any negotiations.

The Benghazi enclave (and Cyrenaica generally) will need to import all fuel needs by sea.

Meanwhile in Yemen:

SANA, Yemen — Security forces and government supporters opened fire on demonstrators on Friday, killing at least 30, as the largest protest so far in Yemen came under violent and sustained attack in the center of the capital, Sana.

From the NY Times