1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Gadhafi regime crumbling...and fast

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Baraka_Guru, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I just heard about this now, but I'm a bit too busy to comment at length.

    However, it appears that Gadhafi's long reign is finally coming to an end. His defences have collapsed in Tripoli.

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/45737/libya-rebels-in-tripoli-gadhafi-defenses-collapse
     
  2. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    I don't know how "fast" this has been. After all, Gadhafi's forces have been getting pounded by NATO for some time now.

    Regardless, it looks like the Transitional Government is in control of Tripoli, with the exception of Gadhafi's compound. Unless this is a trap, it really looks like it's just a matter of time before Gadhafi surrenders or dies.
     
  3. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    the situation is still developing quickly and there's lots of stuff flying around on twitter with the usual problems of there being no easy way to confirm a lot of it. many of these sources have al arabiya to be among the better/faster networks at the moment:

    http://english.alarabiya.net/

    in addition to al jazeera.

    cnn is, of course, fucking worthless.

    monitoring this. too early and too much confusion to know exactly what's happening, but its quite clear that gaddhafi's position has crumbled very quickly over the past few hours.

    ===

    edit: charlatan--nato issued a statement about 4 pm est indicating they expected house-to-house fighting and significant casualties. by 5 the presidential guard had surrendered. that's quick---but of course it's all the fog of war.
     
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Fast is relative, yes.

    But let's remember: Gadhafi's been in power for nearly 42 years.

    What's evident, at least, is that the news coming out now seems unprecedented in terms of what it means for the future of the country.

    I can't wait to see what comes about when the fog clears.
     
  5. i hope this dictator is gone for good real soon.

    My concern is who will take reins and how will the vacuum be filled. Im hoping for brighter days for Libya. But looking at the way Egypt has evolved since the arab spring, i'd still be concerned with how things will pan out for the middle east uprisings.
     
  6. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    this is quite different from the situation in egypt, obviously. there's nothing like the "transitional" military that's clearly being backed by the united states and which is trying to somehow manage the revolution---contain it, channel it, frustrate it, wear it down---and the united states is acting as it is because of the centrality of egypt in shoring up its lunatic policy toward israel. i think we're seeing a little demonstration of the thinking around gaza (which of course the israelis continue to bomb)...in libya the rebels will find themselves trying to figure out a structure and/or transitional phase on the fly and on their own. and insofar as information streams are concerned, what that'll look like isn't clear to anyone. personally, i would think that the co-ordination between nato and the united states with the military organization has extended to some kind of organization building has been happening...but that's speculation.

    interesting situation unfolding. nato used the word fluid to describe it like they had just discovered it.
     
  7. samcol

    samcol Getting Tilted

    Location:
    indiana
    and what was the point of all this anyway? another illegal war by the US.

    'kinetic action' now means war, 'fluid' refers to 1300 people dieing. ya that sounds about right.

    this is the work of empire, not empathy.
     
  8. if you're meaning that this is something that only the west wants, then yes, there is no point in all this if that's the case.

    But arabs in general, and Libyans in particular want this wacko gone too, so i think there is a point in all this, and this needs to happen. I just hope that this isnt an ad hoc plan like the rest of them.
     
  9. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I agree.

    The point was a popular uprising by the Libyan people against a brutal tyrant, with the support of the UN. Hardly an illegal war by the US.

    The popular uprising would have been crushed w/o the support of NATO (with a limited US role), and to a lesser extent the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

    The question of what follows is uncertain. The Libyan Transitional National Council does not bring much in the way of political/governmental or economic expertise to the table and given the reported in-fighting among the rebels, to some extent along tribal lines, I wouldnt expect a smooth transition.
     
  10. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I think samcol is thinking more along the lines of domestic laws than international ones with the illegal comment.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. samcol

    samcol Getting Tilted

    Location:
    indiana
    i love this notion that it's automatically legal if the UN says so. this was a war were the 'decider' did everything. no consulting congress no declaring war. i thought a nation was supposed to be a threat to us before we attacked them? all that went out the window. congress is supposed to make the decision to use military force, and the president is to EXECUTE them being the executive branch and all. instead of having hundreds of members of congress debating whether to go to war or not, we now just allow one person to decide this. is that not a dictatorship of the executive branch?

    the new executive branch position on everything since gwb is: lets see what we can get away with and ask questions later. obama is continuing this tradition. no one on the left has a problem with it since it doesn't violate the UN position apparently, and the right gets what they had coming when they didn't speak out against bush's power grabs.
     
  12. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I would agree that Obama's reliance on the War Powers Act could be interpreted that way, but I would disagree, particularly given that the US role was so limited, after the initial air strike. This was a NATO operation led the French and Italians, along with the Turks (the only Arab member of NATO) with the US primarily in a logistical role.
     
  13. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I find this position tragically Americentric.

    The Commander of the NATO operation is Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
     
  14. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Right.

    I think most of the air strikes were by French and Italian forces, with Turkey part of the naval blockade -- NATO countries with more invested in the outcome than the US or Canada.
     
  15. samcol

    samcol Getting Tilted

    Location:
    indiana
    the problem with ignoring the US laws is: when is a revolution just?, and when is the government in power just? these are things that are to be debated by many members who are elected to represent our country. for one person to be able to decide which side to be on seems very dangerous to me and against our domestic laws.
     
  16. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I think when there is a UN mandate to prevent the slaughter of a popular uprising against an oppressive regime, along with the (tacit) support of neighboring organizations like the Arab League and the GCC, it was the right thing for the US to participate, particularly in the background manner in which we were engaged.

    I dont agree that laws were ignored. We have a different interpretation of the War Powers Act.
     
  17. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Yes, I'm sure. I know that Canada has over 500 people working there to enforce the no-fly zone mainly. And at least 6 or 7 fighter jets. I'm sure nations such as France and Italy are contributing way more than that. As usual, Canada's role is largely supportive and security-based. But the point is this isn't a U.S. operation by any stretch.


    Yes, this was nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan. If anything, it's closer to Kuwait. Wasn't the War Powers Act used to respond to Kuwait?
     
  18. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Comparing Libya to Iraq is completely missing the point.

    I too am concerned about what comes next. One should judge a revolution not on how quickly they can remove the old regime, but on what they do once they have power.
     
  19. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Not just Kuwait and the first Gulf War, but Reagan used the War Powers Act to invade Grenada and George HW Bush to invade Panama.
     
  20. samcol

    samcol Getting Tilted

    Location:
    indiana
    the question is whether any of these actions were legal or righteous, not just that the other party in power used them so it's ok to do so now. just because ghw and reagan used this clause doesn't mean you can use it to justify the actions in libya. either all of these actions were legal or none of them were.

    that's the problem with usurping the constitution. congress is to commit US forces to combat and the president is to execute the engagement. i don't agree with the ability of the president to commit us to war AND to execute the war. do you not have a problem with this? these are the type of things that dictatorships are made of.

    separation of powers is one of the basic principles the united states was founded on. just because the end justifies the means, doesn't make it ok (and i'm not even sure the end is going to be ok in libya as this has just begun).