Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[J. J.]

J.J., take a look at a map.  Both Zirtan and Misurata are in the west and Gaddafi's forces had already entered Misurata by the time the air campaign began. Where Gaddafi has been forced to retreat is in the east.

They just entered Misrata today.  The people were celebrating, then the shelling started.  Later, tanks entered the city.  I just saw it on the BBC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

J.J., take a look at a map.  Both Zirtan and Misurata are in the west and Gaddafi's forces had already entered Misurata by the time the air campaign began. Where Gaddafi has been forced to retreat is in the east.

They just entered Misrata today.  The people were celebrating, then the shelling started.  Later, tanks entered the city.  I just saw it on the BBC.

J.J., that fighting has been going for days.  Wikipedia has a fairly good and well-cited summary of what has been going on in Misurata for the past month. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misurata

[J. J.]

J.J., take a look at a map.  Both Zirtan and Misurata are in the west and Gaddafi's forces had already entered Misurata by the time the air campaign began. Where Gaddafi has been forced to retreat is in the east.

They just entered Misrata today.  The people were celebrating, then the shelling started.  Later, tanks entered the city.  I just saw it on the BBC.

J.J., that fighting has been going for days.  Wikipedia has a fairly good and well-cited summary of what has been going on in Misurata for the past month. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misurata

Yes, and as of this morning Qaddafi's forces entered the city and were in there with tanks.  One tank also got into Benghazi, though it is believed it was eventually destroyed.

[Gustaf]

Of course, Gaddafi is so legitimate like Cameron that is only representative of one constituency and from a party that has a plurality, but not a majority of popular support. Merkel, Cameron, Berlusconi and Sarkozy shook Gadaffi's hand and made business with him, but now, they are throwing him to lions. At least, Gaddafi made Libya more developed than in Idris' time and was more tied with Africa and Islamic's interests from a good group of Libyans.

At first I thought this was a pretty good parody of Khadaffi propaganda, but then it began to seem as if you actually think it's true that he has popular support or that it is an achievement to make a country bathing in oil more developed during the last 40 years of enormous technological process.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It seems that we are headed to a long status quo if the west maintains this position...

[afleitch]

Opebo, any post from now on that I catch where you go into hyperbole and basically satire your own views will be deleted on sight.

k.

I ask that you please clarify for me, afleitch.  I have never engaged in any hyperbole, but merely an honest, direct, and succinct explanation of my views on the civil war and the intervention by outside powers.  Am I not then allowed to express the opinion that the intervention is imperialist,  or any support for the Gaddafi government? 

There are numerous posts engaging in hyperbole in support of the other side of the civil war, and you have not objected to them.  Your stance seems to be to disallow any criticism of the intervention or any approbation of Gaddafi's government.

Your assessment of the conflict has never been anything but hyperbolic; words like 'imperialism', 'empire building', 'cultural imperalism'  bear absolutely no relation to a genuine assessment of why there was UN approval for such action. Your arguments, for the most part, have been lazy word for word repetitions of talking points put out by pampered armchair Trots and Marxists. Each time they are repeated they are more and more irrelevant.

And of course, you forget yourself;

I wonder if one would be allowed to venture the opinion that it would more more advisable to intervene on the side of Gaddafi or if that would be considered a 'trolling' opinion - or perhaps hateful or something of that nature.

If I were to venture such an observation, it would be based on the many years of reliable oil-delivery the gentleman has to his credit, and the fact that however wonderful the bearded 'democracy activists' or rebel-freedom-fighters may be, they are a complete unknown regarding the oils.

And again

Are you serious? Once Gaddafi defeats the rebellion he'll knock things into shape and the oil will flow out.  If we intervene we'll have endless war, dead americans, destabiliation, bearded men, and blocked oil.  I just find it astounding that people are suddenly pro-intervention.

Your opposition to intervention is, it appears, motivated by whatever you can think of (I need my oil!) Or you're just being contrary. And it's probably the former. So it very difficult to determine when you stop being your self and start being a parody.

You should consider yourself lucky that they are only being deleted or edited. If they were reported, they would rack up infraction points.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

And again

Are you serious? Once Gaddafi defeats the rebellion he'll knock things into shape and the oil will flow out. If we intervene we'll have endless war, dead americans, destabiliation, bearded men, and blocked oil.  I just find it astounding that people are suddenly pro-intervention.

Your opposition to intervention is, it appears, motivated by whatever you can think of (I need my oil!) Or you're just being contrary. And it's probably the former. So it very difficult to determine when you stop being your self and start being a parody.

You should consider yourself lucky that they are only being deleted or edited. If they were reported, they would rack up infraction points.

I think a lot of reasonable people, including me when I'm being reasonable, agree with the bolded parts, Andrew.  Which is probably why nobody is reporting his posts.

[J. J.]

I don't see what everyone expects Obama to do. Would military intervention in Libya really be worth it?

As Beet said, it's hard to imagine that the consequences of limited military intervention in Libya would be anywhere near as bad as the consequences of Qaddafi defeating the rebellion.

Are you serious? Once Gaddafi defeats the rebellion he'll knock things into shape and the oil will flow out.  If we intervene we'll have endless war, dead americans, destabiliation, bearded men, and blocked oil.  I just find it astounding that people are suddenly pro-intervention.

If are goal was to defeat Qaddafi and establish a freer Libya, and we were willing to commit the resources to do it, I'd agree with Lief.  I'd be willing to take the chances of a few beards (that would see us as friendly).

Instead, it looks like the worst of both worlds.  Qaddafi remains, the beards become angry because we can't help, and we get an insurgent movement in Libya.

[bullmoose88]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

Yeah yeah.  Dailymail.  Yeah.

Big clusterfcuk.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

Yeah yeah.  Dailymail.  Yeah.

Big clusterfcuk.

Yeah, as France always said, it wasn't a good idea to make NATO in. That being said, no matter where Germany prefers to make its boat enjoying water, they have never been in the operations, and the role of NATO seems to have been determined now. France accepted that it played a technical role in the planning but not the slightest political role, in term of political command and representation I guess, only a kind of background technical role.

As for Misrata, some tanks entered in the city since the day after the 1st bombing, which makes Sunday. A nasty guerilla began since then.

For Zintan, the French reporter was there, and maybe he was the only one there, during the fights, and after the fights, he saw the defeated positions of Gaddafi forces, he saw the victory, he saw the heavy equipment caught, and said that some remaining forces fled to a military base, then they might come back, and what the Guardian said about that doesn't differ much:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Zintan has been one of the 1st if not the 1st western city to go on protest on the very 1st days, maybe the same day than Benghazi, and since then they had already defeated some army positions and taken some equipment, which might explain why they succeeded to one more time defeat some new attacks, and with still more equipment taken, unless Gaddafi forces decides an huge attack, they would be taking the advantage.

[opebo]

Your assessment of the conflict has never been anything but hyperbolic; words like 'imperialism', 'empire building', 'cultural imperalism'  bear absolutely no relation to a genuine assessment of why there was UN approval for such action. Your arguments, for the most part, have been lazy word for word repetitions of talking points put out by pampered armchair Trots and Marxists. Each time they are repeated they are more and more irrelevant.

Really?  One simply may not use the  concepts of imperialism, empire, and cultural imperialism in an analysis of international relations?  You leave us no permissible opinion other than  jingoism or silence.  You have eliminated the possibility of debate - is this your intention?   (is this attack motivated by you personal antipathy to 'pampered armchair Trots and Marxists?  Because even if you find them distasteful, that is nothing more than adhominem and offers no actual refutation of their analysis)

As for this:

And of course, you forget yourself;

I wonder if one would be allowed to venture the opinion that it would more more advisable to intervene on the side of Gaddafi or if that would be considered a 'trolling' opinion - or perhaps hateful or something of that nature.

If I were to venture such an observation, it would be based on the many years of reliable oil-delivery the gentleman has to his credit, and the fact that however wonderful the bearded 'democracy activists' or rebel-freedom-fighters may be, they are a complete unknown regarding the oils.

And again

Are you serious? Once Gaddafi defeats the rebellion he'll knock things into shape and the oil will flow out.  If we intervene we'll have endless war, dead americans, destabiliation, bearded men, and blocked oil.  I just find it astounding that people are suddenly pro-intervention.

Those two posts say the same thing - that Gaddafi is a perfectly adequate order-keeper for this oil-field.  This is the only real Western concern in terms of interests, and saying so should be allowed, afleitch.  If it isn't, how can one disagree with and criticize the war?

Your opposition to intervention is, it appears, motivated by whatever you can think of (I need my oil!) Or you're just being contrary. And it's probably the former. So it very difficult to determine when you stop being your self and start being a parody.

What do you mean - that if I have more than one reason for opposing the war I cannot be allowed to oppose it? That one is only allowed one reason for a position or one is 'just being contrary'?  That doesn't make sense - there are often several reasons for and against a policy position in complicated issues like this.

You should consider yourself lucky that they are only being deleted or edited. If they were reported, they would rack up infraction points.

Why would they be reported afleitch?  You're just censoring opinion.  There is nothing offensive here - its just the opposite way of looking at the affair from what we hear in the news and the speeches of leaders of the attacking nations.  If we may only accept this official line, and may not criticise it or question it, what is the point of having any forum at all?

I really take deep offense that you have gone over the line with me on this issue - I care quite strongly about my opposition to this intervention, and the observations and arguments that I share here I also share with my real life colleagues, students, and friends.  I think it is important to question this policy, and I think my reasons are valid, or at least worthy of consideration.  I find your off-hand dismissal of them unfair, and I find your motivation in deleting them questionable.

Is there any mechanism for bringing the other moderators or the man himself in to judge this issue?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is a passionate issue, and sans personal attacks, I hope we can speak with passion on both sides.

Passion and hyperbole are a fine line sometimes, but worth enduring on a consequential matter like this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gaddafi loyalists are reported to be shelling the main hospital in Misrata. Classy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Let me repeat that : we can't let things last that way for decades.

[The Doctor]

We should have assassinated Gadaffi, not sent in troops. We cannot afford a third war. This could be a quagmire.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

We should have assassinated Gadaffi, not sent in troops. We cannot afford a third war. This could be a quagmire.

We haven't sent in troops yet, have we? 

(c) The AP

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

President Barack Obama categorically ruled out a land invasion to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi Wednesday as coalition forces launched a fifth day of air strikes against government military targets in the North African nation.

And Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he can't predict how long the no-fly zone operation will last, but that the U.S. could turn over control of it as early as Saturday.

That said, I'm tired of us being the worlds cops.

[J. J.]

Rebel control in Ajdabiya seems to be slipping.

Let me repeat that : we can't let things last that way for decades.

I doubt it we can win this from the air or the sea.  Is it worth it to you to send 1-2 US divisions?

[afleitch]

Opebo; I am not censoring opinion. You may notice all but a few of your posts remain intact; when you lapse into hyperbole it is subject to moderation as all such posts are. End of.

[King]

Gaddafi loyalists are reported to be shelling the main hospital in Misrata. Classy.

Shooting at hospitals is a treasured part of their culture, imperialist swine.

[bgwah]

Gaddafi is not a legitimate leader in any sense of the word and it's a matter of time before the deadenders and mercs are defeated.

How is Gaddafi not a 'legitimate' leader?  He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

[Gustaf]

Gaddafi is not a legitimate leader in any sense of the word and it's a matter of time before the deadenders and mercs are defeated.

How is Gaddafi not a 'legitimate' leader?  He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

I don't believe I actually have to point this out, but (1) one should, in general, be wary of trusting statistics out of dictatorships because they frequently turn out to be messed up or just plain lies and (2) oil. In fact, let me say that second one again: oil.

Actually, one could also point out that being such a swine that you make your people rise up in arms and then start massacring them isn't really the pinnacle of human development, but that's another issue I suppose.

[opebo]

...He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

bgwah, the link you provided shows Libya to have a very high 'Human Development Index', so it would seem to refute your characterization of my post as 'nonsense'.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Lugar says the US shouldn't participate in a no-fly zone unless Congress passes a declaration of war:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

So, a week ago, Obama gets bitched at due to whining about there not being enough action taken in Libya, and now he gets warning and pre-emptive criticism that we need to follow exact procedure and go all in before we do anything.

And like I said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZnYbbY57qg

This is insane.

[John Dibble]

And like I said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZnYbbY57qg

This is insane.

So... politics as usual?

[Silent Hunter]

ABC reports that a Libyan Galeb has been shot down by French fighters.