Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Revolution in Tunisia & Egypt, Protests in Libya, Bahrain, Oman & Yemen

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Revolution in Tunisia & Egypt, Protests in Libya, Bahrain, Oman & Yemen (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/163672-revolution-tunisia-egypt-protests-libya-bahrain-oman-yemen.html)

i dont see the nation-state as a coherent socio-economic unit at this point...capital flows are transnational and outside the control of states; production flows, armament flows...what the nation-state remains is a military unit. since world war 2, the americans have developed the national-security state as a model---it is the preferred patronage system of the american right. from the reagan period, the national-security state, which never really made sense in any kind of democratic way (quite the contrary) during the cold war somehow managed to persist (conservative political patronage, etc.)...and the kinds of realpolitik that were of a piece with the national-security state (support for "friendly" tyrants whose friendliness was reflected in purchase of american weapons systems for example) managed to persist.

but that's coming apart. the revolutions across north africa and the middle east seem to me against neo-liberalism, against the national-security state model, against the kind of oligarchy that the united states seemed willing to present to itself and the world as if it were not a problem that is of a piece with neo-liberal/national-security states. it's against the old american empire---but not necessarily against american presence in the world as an important player.

the international community has instituted no mechanism for addressing humanitarian crises since rwanda. the reactionary politics of nationalisms, of nation-states, are a central obstacle.

nation-states are historically a creation of the 20th century. hopefully they'll soon be relics of an unfortunate past.

I think part of the fear surrounding Saudi Arabia has to do with the fact that, like other nation states in the region, because of the lack of free speech and the repressiveness of the regime, there are only two voices we ever get to hear -- the official voice of the government and the voice of fundamentalist church. Everything else is either absent or (I suspect) underground. The moderate voice has mostly been squashed into submission. The fundamentalist voice has been allowed to speak, a) because it's from a church and b) because it's mostly speaking against and laying blame at the feet of foreign powers (i.e. the US and its allies).

Add to this, the idea that the government has been buying off it's opposition (much like we see happening all around the Middle East) with oil money and concessions (eg no driving for women, etc.). So long as the moderate voice of change doesn't have a platform, change is difficult to make. I'd be a lot more comfortable about unrest in Saudi Arabia if I knew there was an alternative to the increasingly fundamentalist voices that appear to be the only other voice.

i think there is secular political opposition within saudi arabia. this blog is pretty good...

Fantastic | Crossroads Arabia

in helping to get a sense of it in terms of what it is where it operates and what kind of demands/problems are potential problems. the entry that the link takes you to argues that saudi arabia isn't that different from other countries in the region, particularly in the linkages between oligarchy and choked-off opportunities for younger people in particular--it's just wealthier. and, as is clear if you read it, the writer doesn't think abdullah can simply bribe these problems away.

so i suspect this information gap that shapes the concerns about saudi arabia....

note too that there are protests to come in saudi and kuwait.
bahrain continues to develop.
oman has had turmoil.
there's a lot of trouble brewing in iraq for lots of obvious reasons.
jordan's attempts to head off protests are tenuous.
libya appears headed into civil war....

ok, do you guys remember the journalist friend of mine who was on the turkish flotilla that was headed into israel last year?

well, he's managed to get into Libya now.. we werent sure that he'd be let in since he only arrived there a few days ago, but he's there now...

here's his interesting blog!

gulfnews : Libyan Diary: Eyewitness account

nice, dlish. interesting blog...look forward to tracking it.

here's another blogger who's tracking opposition politics as it's taking shape/surfacing in saudi arabia.

Now we’re talking Saudi Jeans

it looks like the "post-islamicist" character of these actions could carry over to saudi as well...

meanwhile, tunisia continues to be the most advanced of the revolts; demonstrations over the weekend forced to prime minister and minister of industry and commerce to resign. that makes 2 people left who were in government under ben ali. so the pressure from below is forcing the oligarchy to relinquish power by degrees. this is a very good thing.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

=======================

some additional factoids for your delectation.

1. of course, there is the trans-national armaments bazaar, pillar of neo-liberal states, center of the national-security state model, product of conservative patronage everywhere and a strong reason for advocating the breaking up of the "globalizing capitalist" system as it currently exists. it routinely produces this sort of result:

Western arms helping Libyan forces massacre anti-regime rebels, EU documents reveal - Telegraph

and this is not to begin speaking about the french foreign minister who was forced to resign on the weekend for offering direct aid to ben ali's government to suppress those pesky demonstrators. this before things took off, of course. back in the days of the old status quo. when such things were still routine.

2. it turns out that in the recommendation that was sent along to the international criminal court that recommended prosecution of gadhafi and/or the regime for war crimes, that there's an exemption for "mercenaries" who originate in countries which are not signatories of the rome protocol that authorizes the icc itself.

why is that?

Quote:

Why would a clause be inserted to expressly protect war crimes-committing mercenaries on Gadaffi's payroll from international prosecutions? Because, as The Telegraph's John Swaine reports, the Obama administration insisted on its inclusion -- as an absolutely non-negotiable demand -- due to a fear that its exclusion might render Bush officials (or, ultimately, even Obama officials) subject to war crimes prosecutions at the ICC on the same theory that would be used to hold Libya's mercenaries accountable:

[T]he US insisted that the UN resolution was worded so that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC could be prosecuted for their actions in Libya.

This means that mercenaries from countries such as Algeria, Ethiopia and Tunisia -- which have all been named by rebel Libyan diplomats to the UN as being among the countries involved -- would escape prosecution even if they were captured, because their nations are not members of the court.

The move was seen as an attempt to prevent a precedent that could see Americans prosecuted by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts. While the US was once among the signatories to the court, George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002 and declared that it did not have power over Washington. . . . It was inserted despite Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, saying that all those "who slaughter civilians" would "be held personally accountable".

Speaking to reporters outside the council chamber, Gerard Araud, the French UN ambassador, described the paragraph as "a red line for the United States", meaning American diplomats had been ordered by their bosses in Washington to secure it. "It was a deal-breaker, and that's the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the council," said Mr Araud.

U.S. shields foreign mercenaries in Libya to protect Bush officials - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Libya: African mercenaries 'immune from prosecution for war crimes' - Telegraph

3. this, which i was tipped to via the greenwald column above, speaks for itself:

Eschaton

sadly.

the saudi quiz is really interesting. good find.

here's something from foreign policy outlining in some detail why saudi arabia is a prime candidate for a revolt:

Yes, It Could Happen Here - by Madawi Al-Rasheed | Foreign Policy

the quiz was quite interesting. some of the answers were a surprise.

is $36B going to keep the saudis quiet? and for how long?

the arab youth are fed up with the level of disservice their tyrant leaders have delivered in the last 50 years. no amount of money can stop the fervour and yearning of freedom.

In Syria the government has said that they will spend 250M on reform, Kuwait has said it will give free food for a year and pay for utilities, Saudi will write off bank debts and spend $36B, Oman will write off bank debts and create jobs etc etc. These regimes have milked their countries dry since WW2, and think that bribing their constituants will taper their peoples yearning for freedom.

dlish -

10 yard penalty, gross misuse of the word constituent! :)

constituent - one who authorizes another to act as agent

Yes, neither a monarch nor a despot have constituents.

I think dlish meant "subjects."

Well that's the convenient thing about subjects, you rarely have to give a shit what they think. BTW, aren't you two subjects? Prince Willie is going to have a right nice wedding on your dime. :)

what it looks like when tens of thousands of people try to cross a border. libya/tunisia version

YouTube - unhcr's Channel

Quote:

UNHCR steps up relief efforts as huge numbers flee Libya to Egypt and Tunisia

News Stories, 1 March 2011

RAS ADJIR, Tunisia, March 1 (UNHCR) – UNHCR emergency staff said here Tuesday that the situation at the Libya-Tunisia border is at crisis point, with 14,000 people crossing the day before from Libya. It was the highest number of crossings in a single day since anti-government protests turned violent in mid-February. A further 10,000-15,000 are expected to cross on Tuesday.

"We can see acres of people waiting to cross the border. Many have been waiting for three to four days in the freezing cold, with no shelter or food," said Ayman Gharaibeh, head of the UNHCR emergency response team at the border. "Usually the first three days of the crisis are the worst. This seems to be getting worse by the day," he added.

The Tunisian authorities said 70,000-75,000 people have fled to their country from Libya since February 20. With tens of thousands of them stuck at the border, and more expected, UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming told journalists in Geneva that it was "becoming critically important that onwards transport becomes quickly available to avoid a humanitarian crisis."

On Monday, UNHCR erected 500 tents close to the border in a new transit camp. A further 1,000 tents were expected to go up on Tuesday, giving shelter to a total of about 12,000 people by this evening. Two airlifts are planned for Thursday with tents and supplies for up to 10,000 people.

The water and hygiene situation at the border remains precarious. UNHCR has asked the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) to help with improving these facilities. Tunisian civilians, the Tunisian Red Crescent and the military have all been unstinting in their support, but are seriously overstretched.

UNHCR staff who have visited the border entry point to Tunisia were worried about the huge numbers on the Libyan side. Fleming in Geneva said the refugee agency was particularly concerned "that a large number of sub-Saharan Africans are not being allowed entry into Tunisia at this point. UNHCR is in negotiations with self-appointed volunteers from the local community who are guarding the border."

The emergency response leader Gharaibeh said most of those crossing the border were fit young men. "This is the only reason why the situation has not degenerated into a huge crisis so far."

Meanwhile, the Egyptian government reported that some 69,000 people had crossed into Egypt from Libya since February 19. "The majority of those who have crossed are Egyptians, most of whom have already been transported to other towns and cities. Around 3,000 people remain in the arrival/departure area awaiting onward transportation," Fleming said. On Monday, UNHCR distributed relief items and food prepared by the Egyptian Red Crescent.

Today, the Egyptian Red Crescent was due to transport a consignment of UNHCR medical supplies and food into eastern Libya. The food and medicine is being sent in response to requests from tribal leaders who UNHCR met over the weekend, and is expected to arrive tomorrow. Further convoys are being prepared.

In Libya itself, UNHCR national staff have kept the organization's office in Tripoli open for refugees. UNHCR has been offering assistance to those who are able to reach the office. Staff there are also manning a 24-hour hotline. This phone link, and a hotline manned from Geneva, continues to receive desperate calls from refugees in Libya and their family members outside, saying they feel trapped, threatened and hunted.

"We have heard several accounts from refugees who tell us their compatriots have been targeted and killed. Others tell us about forced evictions and attacks on their homes," Fleming said in Geneva.

UNHCR - UNHCR steps up relief efforts as huge numbers flee Libya to Egypt and Tunisia

yeah my bad cimm. constituents is definately the wrong word to use in this instance. But i'd prefer you use the word metre instead of yard please :P

yeah im a subject, but i'm not forking a dime for Big Willies Wedding ;)

living in a tax free country for the last 4 years and havent paid a penny in tax since i left. Willie can go and spend all he wants on his pissy wedding. Im not even sure if Australia contributes any money towards the monarchy either. But I cant wait for the next referendum on whether we should become a republic. I'll show him what i think of them. Damn pommies...

ahhh democracy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2877813)

Well that's the convenient thing about subjects, you rarely have to give a shit what they think. BTW, aren't you two subjects? Prince Willie is going to have a right nice wedding on your dime. :)

Nah. Most of the political power resides in elected officials, which means the monarchy is authorized by the Canadian public. And even the Queen herself is restricted by our constitution.

Our head of state may be a monarch, but the state is actually governed by parliamentary powers. You see, your head of state is also a part of your government, in addition to being your military commander-in-chief and your chief diplomat. If anything, your president is more like a monarch to your nation than the Queen is to ours.

/threadjack

No, wait! I think Saudi Arabia should become a constitutional monarchy!

So, what you are saying is that I actually have a positive ROI with my "monarch" and you are the sucker who pays for a monarch and gets nothing in return...except pictures of the really pretty houses they live in...on your dime? Hey, you do like distribution of wealth and they are the premier parasites. You are living your dream, baby!:thumbsup:

We only pay the Queen when she's "queening it up" on our behalf. It's like less than a buck fifty per capita. So for the price of a cup of coffee, I support the awesome idea of having someone as esteemed and distinguished as Her Royal Majesty the Queen of Canada Elizabeth II.

No, seriously. The Crown is compensated for things that the Royal Family and the Governor-General (and the lieutenants) do on our behalf. Much of that is for ceremonies, honours, and designations. A part of our heritage, a part of our national pride. Many artists dream of one day winning a Governor-General's Award and many hard-working Canadians have been given the distinction of the Order of Canada, both of which are bestowed upon them by the Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty.

But if you simply look at the big picture, the powers that the president has is simply distributed between a few people: the prime minister, the Queen, and the Governor-General.

/threadjack (for reals)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver (Post 2875958)

I'd love to see Obama park a Carrier outside of Libya and simply say any aircraft that takes off from here-forward will be immediately shot down.

We can shoot well outside of anti-ship/air missile range, and provide at least a little assistance to the protesters.

I think that we should tell the pilots to fly north and land in Malta (or some other remote air strip) or else get shot down. We can tail them in our fighter jets, but there is no reason to blow up perfectly good jets or not let the pilots live (they get shot if they don't fly, they get blown out of the sky if they do)

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2877888)

YouTube - Muammar Gaddafi - Zenga Zenga Song - Noy Alooshe Remix + Download

I used to hear this song all the time in the strip club we used to go to...which makes it oh so much more fun to watch.

so how can these oil rich states make this problem go away? its facebook's fault after all isnt it? ohhhh..i know, let's buy out facebook!

Saudi Arabia denies offering $150bn to buy Facebook

Wow. Just to put that into perspective, Facebook's market capitalization is around $50 billion. Google's is just over $193 billion.

Wow. If that really happened, it would be a very interesting turn of events. Somehow, I think it's just a lot of hot air.

I think it would be really cool to try to enforce Sha'ria on Facebook! Women's avatars could get virtually stoned after they posted their springbreak pics.

Nah, with the resources of Saudi Arabia, they'd surely come up with a killer mandatory app for ~~profile~~ all pics of women: the Auto-Abaya app.

Now picture all the shots of Panama City Beach of spring break, with all the CG abayas as far as the eye can see. Don't worry, you will still see all those young girls' eyes smiling.

cimmaron - its spelt Shari'a. Just saying :D

well i think it would be a swell idea to buy facebook out. think about it. instead of spending $36billion on your people for reforms without ever recouping those costs, why not buy out face book for 150B, give those jobs to saudis and still have a thriving business that generates more money for the government. whilst at the same time shutting down one of the mouthpieces of your opponents.

im sure somebody would have tabled this in a meeting somwhere. This has got winner written all over it.

this is pretty great.

Quote:

Kate Adie: The Gaddafi I knew

Gaddafi's Libya ran on farce mingled with fear, recalls the BBC reporter he nearly ran down in a small, battered Peugeot

I feel obliged to dip into books which have been given to me as a present. "In need freedom is latent . . ." Late at night in Tripoli in 1984 I found Colonel Gaddafi's Green Book hard going. He'd signed the book that morning, in revolutionary green ink of course, a curious V-shape, as if an inky fly had slid down the page and staggered back up. He'd also given me a Qur'an and wished me Happy Christmas.

Nothing was ever straightforward dealing with Gaddafi.

There was little to do in revolutionary Libya in the evenings. Television was dreary, full of the Leader's speeches and only occasionally enlivened by pirated foreign programmes, including the nation's favourite: Monty Python's Flying Circus. Libyans watched it, not laughing but nodding. They said: "That's our country they're showing." It was an oil-rich country with broken pavements and an atmosphere that discouraged taking a walk in the dark. No obvious threat, no armed men prowling the street, just hotel employees and anonymous regime officials twitching with an unexpressed fear that "things might happen . . ." So I read on: "No democracy without popular congresses, and committees everywhere."

In frequent visits since, I've noticed that the Colonel's slogans plastered on the walls of public buildings have faded somewhat, but he still looms large, even when cornered. And when the possibility of freedom emerged in the city of Benghazi a few days ago, a bright-eyed young man was shouting joyfully, "We're forming a committee." This is the new Libya, which needs a government – and old habits die hard.

The young man had grown up with the obligatory sign in his school saying "Committees everywhere". And before this latest revolution, it felt like a threat, as if a committee was a species of lurking animal that might pop into view at any moment, trailing paperclips and agendas and demanding that You at The Back Pay Attention or Else. No one needed reminding that the nation was ruled through fear.

Committees were the Colonel's pet instruments of government, theoretically. In the Green Book, he set out his arguments, or rather decisions, about how a nation should be run. It begins somewhat discouragingly with a chapter entitled The Solution of The Problem of Democracy.

The Book has handy diagrams involving People's Committees, Basic Popular Congresses, People's Congresses and Municipal Congresses, with lots of arrows, all in revolutionary green. In the 80s, I made repeated attempts to find out if this system actually functioned.

Admittedly, Libyan television frequently carried footage of circles of traditionally white-clad elderly men in the desert sitting and talking animatedly. In the cities, eager young men pounded fists and yelled slogans in similar gatherings. However, the minimum of viewing confirmed that the same two meetings appeared most evenings. I put the suggestion that I should sit in on one of these sessions to the ubiquitous Ministry of Information minders assigned to all foreign journalists. There was blank incomprehension.

"What for?" asked one, in his curious Libyan-Welsh accent acquired on a course in Newport.

I replied I'd like to see his country's form of democracy in action. There was a long discussion. Had I stepped into a sensitive area? Easily done, as the precise size of the population, of the military forces, of the police force and of Gaddafi's family were all out of bounds.

Some discussion followed, and an unwilling minder went off to find transport. Hours later, we were still touring the suburbs of Tripoli trying to find a Committee. Eventually we arrived at a scruffy bit of wasteland on which a marquee sagged. I congratulated the minders, who rolled their eyes. "Is there a problem?" I inquired. Forcefully, a Welsh-sounding voice hissed: "Booooring."

He was dead right. A score of men, several snoring in the morning heat, were inside the marquee. Careful questioning produced no agenda, no evidence of discussion, but an animated realisation that having been there for several hours, it was time for tea again.

"Do they ever discuss politics?"

The minders looked horrified and confided that such matters were absolutely off-limits.

Perhaps in the first flush of revolution there had been some elements of participation and debate, but they had long-since withered. Occasionally, when the international press descended for a major event, someone stage-managed a noisy forum and stuck up a notice saying People's Congress. Much shouting and sloganeering would fill the air. Actual debate was absent. The regime was intolerant of any dissent, retribution was frightening and people disappeared. It was not unknown for human limbs to be found in skips awaiting rubbish collection.

So how did the nation function?

There were ministries – just about. Some able men managed to push various policies into practice, but were frequently thwarted by capricious and instant legislation. One afternoon the Colonel addressed a deliriously enthusiastic meeting and suddenly announced that all imported luxury cars were to be got rid of. Fifteen minutes later, a bodyguard sidled up to him to mention that several vehicles in his own motorcade were on fire outside. The order was rescinded on the spot.

Appointments were made without relevance to merit. A nervous civil service never questioned the coming and goings. At the Interior Ministry I asked the man in the biggest office (with a broken fax machine and no working telephone) if he were the minister.

"Maybe," he replied, adding that he had been last year, then someone else had been appointed while he was still in post, but had subsequently . . . er . . . left town . . . "So, maybe I'm the minister," he added helpfully.

The Transport Ministry – like many in other countries – was inured to grandiose schemes. One consequence was the construction of 34 fly-overs to deal with Tripoli's chaotic traffic. They were quite elegant, designed in Europe and built without the usual chunks of concrete missing in many Libyan building works. Unfortunately, no one commissioned any roads to join them together, so for many years they decorated the landscape like giant public sculptures.

The Justice Ministry struggled in a country where summary justice, secret police and the personal clout of Gaddafi's henchmen meant so much more than the mere judicial process.
Katie Adie reporting from Tripoli after the Americans bombed the city in 1986 Katie Adie reporting from Tripoli after the Americans bombed the city in 1986. Photograph: Frank Zabci/Rex Features

I witnessed this during the trial of a young English oil-worker who had been picked up by young "Revolutionary Guards" during a nasty period of radical outrages against the ordinary population and unfortunate foreigners in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We, the British press, had been assured by the Colonel that we would see justice being done. We might have, had the ministry minders managed to find out the date, the time and the place of the hearing. Realising they hadn't delivered what was expected, they went into complete panic-mode. An hour later, I and my TV crew hurtled into a courtroom, empty save for a lone figure on a bench. It was Malcolm, the defendant. "You're too late. I've been convicted."

I turned on the senior minder to deliver my views – and he scooted out the back door of the court like a rabbit from a fox. A short while later, the door opened and three men in the Italianate robes of Libyan judges walked in quickly and sat down. A small swarm of lawyers and officials cantered behind them.

"Set up the camera," said the panting minder.

"We've missed the trial," I pointed out.

"No, no – we're going to do it all again – for you."

The only thing that slightly surprised me was that the verdict remained the same.

Farce mingled with fear. That is how the country ran. At the very heart of the mysterious administration was a clutch of men loyal to – but still very scared of – the Colonel himself.

There are few times when any of us experience total fear. To tremble with fear is a cliche. However, on two occasions I noticed officials in his presence start to shake. I wondered if they were ill, then realised that they were unable to control their fear, sweating and twitching and trying to edge out of his direct gaze. I once asked one of his inner circle – we were not in Libya – why his close colleagues behaved that way. He thought and then said that the Colonel's rages were occasionally so terrible that many thought he might kill. "It's terrible," he said. "But what can we do? He has the power. There are no alternatives in this kind of world. I'd rather not talk about it."

The outside world mostly saw the circus, the oddities, the bizarre behaviour. "Flaky," chuckled President Reagan.

Gaddafi called himself Colonel occasionally and refused to acknowledge the phrase President, preferring the term Leader. He was costumed theatrically – admiral, desert Bedouin, Italian lounge-lizard. He occasionally used the trappings of conventional power – long motorcades – or the occasional white horse. However, he was just as likely to turn up driving a battered small Peugeot with the bumpers missing. I know, because he nearly ran me over one morning trying to park the wreck very inexpertly outside my hotel.

He had a troupe of women all usually referred to as his bodyguards – and indeed, one or two seemed as if they might be quite useful in a tight corner. However, there was always one, perhaps two, quiet, physically compact Berbers unobtrusively just a few yards away: amiably ruthless men, who smiled when I pointed to the women, and remarked that it was useful that the foreign press concentrated on the women . . .

Gaddafi grew notorious for weird behaviour – pitching tents in cities, spouting seven-hour speeches and making absurd claims. However, ignorance drove this as much as instability.

What actually went on in his innermost circle was virtually impossible to learn with any certainty. As his sons grew up, appeared in public, travelled abroad, partied and disgraced themselves with the behaviour of wilful rich brutes, there was no public mention of the succession. It became harder to pin all gestures from the country on the Colonel himself: his second son, Saif al Islam, ex-LSE, shrewd and calculating but much more sophisticated than his father, seemed to be acquiring his own powerbase. He spoke for the regime, travelled and negotiated. However, the Colonel has not retired – and there is no doubt that within the family circle, his word is law.

In the past few years I've raised the subject of what would happen in the future with those who see the Leader regularly: a smooth succession? A violent family quarrel? It has always occasioned shrugs and a nervous silence. It was not to be talked about. Even the recent feverish development, the lucrative oil contracts, the business opportunities being snapped up by foreigners and entrepreneurial Libyans had not sharpened the outline of the future.

True, more foreign travel and the advent of the satellite dish with its Arab news have widened the experience of many of the young. But they have had to contend with a complete lack of available reliable information within their own borders. Factual news is an unknown element in Libyan newsrooms. Ordinary folk have relied much more on gossip and what they hear from family and neighbours – leading to a mind-set ill-equipped to deal with the chaotic implosion of a society. Some of the wilder stories of the past week are the consequence of believing anything other than the official – and rubbish – version of events.

And when the Middle East rebellions started, there was little reaction from the family who have had the power of life and death for more than 40 years, who retain a chilling, arrogant confidence.

Even when Benghazi – always a truculent city for Gaddafi – made its bid for freedom, there was merely the usual public stream of ludicrous accusations and dotty excuses.

However, this time in the Bab el Azzizya barracks they're watching 24-hour Arabic TV – and they must be seeing joyful young people across their nation, unafraid, talking about the hitherto unthinkable – about the future. And, ironically, mentioning committees.

So, down with "committees everywhere", and up with really democratic gatherings, with people speaking up without fear.

Kate Adie: The Gaddafi I knew | World news | The Guardian

on the precariousness of the american position in all this and a demonstration of the idiocy behind neo-con claims that the bush administration is in any way vindicated by people trying to make a democratic path for themselves.

Rage Comes to Baghdad | Foreign Affairs

I don't know why anyone is talking about the Bush administration. Clearly these folks were inspired by Green Bay's win over Pittsburgh in the super bowl.

As long as we're going out on limbs here.

o, i was reading something about the plight of the neo-cons on foreign policy in the washington post i think on the weekend. for reasons i will never quite understand, the paper actually sent someone out to interview the range of fossils from the bush period--you know wolfowitz and abrams and so on. some of them were arguing that line, that the bush people had it right. which made the foreign policy piece about the growing protest movement in iraq---which curiously gets little press here in the u s of a go figure---kinda apposite.

you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2878388)

Or, how about the idiocy in revisionist history - to suggest the invasion of Iraq has had no influence on current events is beyond belief.

Quote:

A Free Iraq Prevented Nuclear Libya

Posted 03/02/2011 07:02 PM ET

Leadership: For years, Barack Obama called Iraq "a dumb war." But considering how that conflict undeniably scared Libya's Moammar Gadhafi into ending his WMD program, the 2003 invasion has never looked smarter.

'I don't oppose all wars," future President Barack Obama told Chicagoans Against War in Iraq during a 2002 rally. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war ... a rash war ... the cynical attempt by ... armchair, weekend warriors in this (Bush) administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Obama called the plan to liberate Iraq an "attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us." And he warned that it "will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida."

Goading the then-commander in chief, Obama said: "You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. (nuclear) inspectors can do their work ... let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people."

Today, after two years of President Obama, our "so-called allies" like Egypt are destabilized, or threatened, and in danger of becoming enemies — nothing "so-called" about it.

Turns out that if it hadn't been for those "armchair warriors" and their "dumb war" in Iraq, Libya might well be a nuclear weapons power today. All the U.N. inspectors in the world wouldn't be able to stop Gadhafi from using atomic and chemical weapons to slaughter tens or even hundreds of thousands of his own people to keep himself in power, instead of just conventional weapons to kill a fraction of that number.

Robert G. Joseph, senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy in Fairfax, Va., led the nuclear weapons negotiations with Libya nearly a decade ago as undersecretary of state for arms control and special envoy for nuclear nonproliferation during the Bush administration. Joseph recounts what may be the most successful nonproliferation success of modern times in his book "Countering WMD: The Libyan Experience."

"Multiple motivations were in play as the Libyan leadership worked through the decision to abandon WMD and longer-range missile programs," Joseph writes. The motivations included ending U.S. sanctions.

"There is no evidence to suggest, however, that the goal of ending sanctions would have been sufficient to induce Libya to acknowledge, remove and destroy its WMD programs," according to Joseph. "All evidence suggests that other motives were essential to this outcome."
Joseph stresses that "the timing of the Libyan approach to the United States and United Kingdom, coming as hundreds of thousands of coalition forces were being deployed to the region to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iraqi WMD, was more than coincidental."

Gadhafi, in fact, told visiting U.S. congressional delegations in January and March 2004 that "he did not want to be a Saddam Hussein and he did not want his people to be subjected to the military efforts that were being put forth in Iraq."

Italian Prime Minister Sergio Berlusconi, in a September 2003 interview, said Gadhafi told him: "I will do whatever the United States wants, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

As Joseph points out: "Words — that those who seek such weapons will put their security at risk — were being backed by action. In Libya, which had long possessed chemical weapons and had embarked on a large-scale effort to be able to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, the message was clearly received ... after Iraq, it would be the next target for U.S. military action."

Had that then-unknown, anti-war Illinois state senator been listened to in 2002, he would today be a president facing possible nuclear war in the Mideast.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...ear-Libya.aspx

Do you even stand with those wanting democracy in the ME?
Do you support freedom of expression, including the practice of a religion other than Islam in the ME?
What about homosexuality in the ME, do you stand in support of any rights for homosexuals in the ME?

Or are you all about the pretense, perhaps the switch from one form of tyranny for another? I guess your views are too complicated, I don't expect any type of a rational response. Just tell me, again, about how wrong it is to post something from IBD.

ace, don't be an ass. did you actually read the foreign policy article i posted above? or is that too much to expect?

if you're not going to even pretend to engage with the same information stream, why do you waste your time---and mine and that of everyone who is importuned by your posts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2878450)

ace, don't be an ass. did you actually read the foreign policy article i posted above? or is that too much to expect?

I have no objection to a discussion of the article you cited, however, my response was to your comment not the article. If you acknowledge that your comment was pure b.s. we can move on.

Quote:

if you're not going to even pretend to engage with the same information stream, why do you waste your time---and mine and that of everyone who is importuned by your posts?

I don't waste time, however it appears that you do based on how you respond. You know what to expect from my posts. I will always cut through the b.s. Every time you pretend to support the democracy movement in the ME, I will point out that you really don't. You clearly can not make a definitive statement regarding what you would support in the ME and therefore who you stand with in the ME. Why don't you think your positions through before posting on matters of life and death importance.

the comment was about the article, a teaser for it.
you haven't offered fuck all in the way of a coherent counter even for that, and basically acknowledge that you didn't read the article.

great job.

it's a waste of time interacting with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2878459)

the comment was about the article, a teaser for it.
you haven't offered fuck all in the way of a coherent counter even for that, and basically acknowledge that you didn't read the article.

B.s., the point of the article was related to something I posted a while ago (see post #296 in this thread) - and even in Iraq, without true economic reforms (which take time), no lasting change will occur and there will be unrest.

The words you used where your words, the did not come from the article. The words you used distorted the article and the truth.

Quote:

great job.

it's a waste of time interacting with you.

Donate a $1 to a charity for every time you have said that and make a difference in the world.:rolleyes: Writing it here has absolutely no value, no impact. For the umpteenth time, ignore my posts if you have a problem with them. I won't ignore yours because I feel a need to correct the record.

this is an interesting account of watching egyptian television for the coverage of the debate between then prime minister shafik and folk from the opposition:

Egyptian Chronicles: Unforgettable night in the Arab TV history

following on which:

Quote:

Bowing to Opposition, Egypt Premier Resigns
By LIAM STACK

CAIRO — Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq resigned on Thursday, bowing to one of the main demands of Egypt’s opposition movement which has demanded his ouster for days from its informal headquarters in a resurrected tent city in Tahrir Square.

Egypt’s transitional military government, which has ruled since the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, announced its decision to replace Mr. Shafiq on a Facebook page.

The new prime minister will be Essam Sharaf, who served as transportation minister from 2004 to 2006.

Mr. Shafiq’s resignation was one of several demands protesters said had to be met by the military and comes one day before a planned major demonstration in Tahrir Square to call for the removal all Mubarak-era ministers, including Mr. Shafiq and Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

Other demands which have yet to be met include an end to Egypt’s decades-old state of emergency, the dismantling of the country’s feared state security service, and the release of political prisoners jailed during the 30-year tenure of former President Mubarak.

Mr. Shafiq was appointed prime minister in the final days of Mr. Mubarak’s tenure after anti-government demonstrations forced him to dismiss the entire cabinet on January 29.

Many protesters and opposition figures viewed Mr. Shafiq as tainted by his association with the former president and feared that Mr. Mubarak, who has not been publicly seen or heard from since stepping down, would continue to rule through him.

“Ahmed Shafiq and Hosni Mubarak are working together,” said Gaby Osman, a 19-year-old protester in Tahrir Square on Monday night. “He became prime minister because of Hosni Mubarak, and we hear rumors that he calls Mubarak on the phone and asks him what he should do to look like he is doing something for the people.”

Mr. Shafiq has been heavily criticized over the last two weeks, and several hundred protesters have camped out in Tahrir Square since Saturday calling for his removal.

On Wednesday night, he fumbled an appearance on a popular satellite channel’s current events talk show during a roundtable discussion with the Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris and the opposition figure Alaa al- Aswani.

Mr. Shafiq defended Egypt’s State Security Force against questions about its use of torture, which has been described by Human Rights Watch as “routine and systematic.”

When pressed on possible reforms, Mr. Shafiq suggested that the s name of the security force be changed to the State Safety Force and that Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the Egyptian uprising, be cleaned up and turned into a version of London’s Hyde Park.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/wo...gewanted=print

so the egyptian revolution makes another step, following more or less the pattern in tunisia (more or less)....

meanwhile, in iraq, from the foreign policy article quoted above:

Quote:

Saddam Hussein may have been overthrown in 2003, but the dawn of more representative government in Iraq has not inoculated the country from the popular unrest now sweeping through the Arab world. Over the past month, demonstrations protesting the woeful lack of services and widespread corruption have taken place throughout the country. These culminated in a violent “day of rage” in a number of Iraqi cities, including one in Baghdad on February 25 that left more than 20 protesters dead.

These protests have not reached the scale of those witnessed in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, and demonstrators have not demanded regime change per se. Nonetheless, the tight security measures taken to contain the “day of rage” protests in Baghdad -- including blocking access to the city and putting a tight military cordon around Tahrir Square, the focal point of the demonstrations -- and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s efforts to link the unrest to al Qaeda and Baathist provocateurs suggest that his government is rattled. And with good cause, because if Baghdad cannot respond effectively to popular demands, the current government’s political survival is no less at stake than those in Cairo, Tripoli, and Tunis.

Although there is undoubtedly an element of contagion influencing events in Iraq, which began with small demonstrations in Baghdad led by intellectuals and professionals, the protests there are driven by local grievances. Popular anger at the persistent lack of services -- especially electricity -- has been rising steadily over the past few years. Demonstrations protesting power shortages occurred in Basra last summer, expressing a frustration common to Iraqis across the country; some parts of Baghdad, for example, received around two hours of electricity per day from the national grid in early February. Iraqis also share growing resentment toward pervasive government corruption, a factor that has been particularly important in driving demonstrations against the regional administration in Kurdistan. Iraq ranked 175 out of 178 countries on Transparency International’s 2010 corruption index. Meanwhile, there is broad resentment of the high salaries and generous benefits that public officials have granted themselves, especially given the government’s apparent ineptitude.

None of these grievances is new; Iraqis have complained about poor services and unresponsive government since the U.S. invasion in 2003. But in the bloody, chaotic years that followed Hussein’s fall, security was the biggest popular concern. Now that levels of violence have diminished, Iraqis’ patience with their government’s inadequacies is wearing thin.

Rage Comes to Baghdad | Foreign Affairs

no resemblance. no relation between the bush "democracy" and the democracy that people are now demanding. no way to justify bushwar by pointing to what's going on now. because in the heart of bushwar, it's corruption and incompetence and an inability to deliver basic services. cronyism and stupidity and an increasingly restive population. with the american military acting to suppress protests demanding democracy.

here's a country-by-country summary from the ny times:

Middle East Protests: A Country-by-Country Look - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

and here is a peter singer edito from al jazeera about the question of intervening in libya, one which i do not think has been posed correctly much less resolved:

Global Justice and Intervention - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2878477)

meanwhile, in iraq, from the foreign policy article quoted above:

Also from the article cited:

Quote:

An Egypt- or Tunisia-style revolution is not in the cards for Iraq -- at least not yet. But if Iraqis are forced to endure another hot summer without sufficient electricity supplies, protests will continue and pressure on the government will grow. Worse yet, the Iraqi people may lose faith altogether in electoral politics, which would put not just Maliki’s future at risk but also the stability of the entire post-2003 political order.

Rage Comes to Baghdad | Foreign Affairs

It is all about the economy, even in Iraq.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gT...0/carville.jpg

My new hero.

right. nothing to see here, folks. ace has determined that the Problem in iraq has nothing to do with incompetence or corruption or american colonial domination.

rather is "the economy stupid" which is exactly correct----it is stupid to imagine that the economy is separable from the political institutions that enable it, that channel it and limit it and so on, so it is in fact only the stupid who would think that "the economy stupid" taken in isolation is in fact an explanation for much of anything.

but it makes some sense that american conservatives would try to enforce such a split given the debacle for they've presided over in these pathetic neo-liberal times, the largest redistribution of wealth toward the top 1 percent in terms of wealth ever seen, the consolidation of the entertainment-security complex, the continuation against all reason of the national-security state, a massive expansion of prisons as an instrument of class warfare, the institution of an intellectual-integrity optional approach not only to politics but information...lots to answer for....so it's not a real shock that its the economy stupid would emanate from those waters.

i don't think anyone else in the world is fooled by this nonsense. certainly not the people protesting in iraq. certainly not those in libya or egypt or tunisia. or algeria or morocco or bahrain or oman or yemen. nor in most of the united states. just over there in the shrinking island of the american right.

But there's nothing wrong with the economy in Iraq. The GDP growth in 2010 was 5.5%, which was almost double that of the U.S. and isn't too shabby compared to red-hot India (8.2%) and the Chinese dragon (10.3%).

Why the unrest? The economy is doing fiiine...