The Situation In The Middle East and North Africa

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by superdave, Feb 12, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    Britain's Parliament found that to be a complete ********ing lie. I linked a Salon (so that you can, in good conscience, read it without looking at icky anti-war or libertarian sources) article a few pages back.

    France was pissed that Libya was going to replace the African franc with the gold dinar, and it coincided with the uprisings scattered through North Africa during the Arab Spring.

    Significant portions of which were IS and AQIM.

    NATO forces facilitated his capture, public sodomization, and death, all based on false pretenses.

    Since the premise was a lie, there certainly was another way to handle it - not support France and Britain.
     
  2. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    Climate change has little to do with this, and the "smaller moves" haven't worked in the first case and handed North Africa's richest nation to AQ and IS in the second.

    Also, it's been a good long while since Italy ruled Libya, and the Ottomans never had that great a grip on Yemen. The Indians and Omanis had a greater sway, maybe even the Portugese a really long time ago, but in modern history, Yemen has largely been independent (with the usual British meddling), if conflicted internally. Thus their architectural treasures which had been until very recently, mostly intact.

    I looked up malipotence, and I got a bunch of "male impotence" results.
     
  3. Moishe

    Moishe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Boca Juniors
    Argentina
    Mar 6, 2005
    Here there and everywhere.
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Better get it some Capri Sun and some orange slices!
     
  4. Moishe

    Moishe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Boca Juniors
    Argentina
    Mar 6, 2005
    Here there and everywhere.
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    The Jew at the top of the list...New World Order bitches!!!!!!!!
     
    crazypete13, roby, stanger and 2 others repped this.
  5. onefineesq

    onefineesq Member+

    Sep 16, 2003
    Laurel, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thats new? Its much more surprising that an uppity negro is in the 2nd spot!

    [emoji16]
     
    crazypete13 and dapip repped this.
  6. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    The U.K. report didn't actually find that it was a "complete ****ing lie." It said "the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty." (p. 15). It also said that many policymakers were operating "under the specter of Srebernica", and that fear of another Sreberenica was "very much a driving factor in the decision-making of the time." (pp. 15-16).

    Certainly Gaddafi's threats didn't help officials with the shedding of those fears:

    "Their stated intention, from Gaddafi himself, was to go house to house, room to room, exacting their revenge on the people of Benghazi…It would be a brave assumption, given the history of Gaddafi, the situation and the disposition of forces, that his army would drive into Benghazi and they would all behave like pussycats. A lot of people were going to die." (pp. 13-14). (emphasis added).

    Undoubtedly the Benghazi forces may have exaggerated the extent of the threat. But if policymakers had bet on Gaddafi showing restraint once his troops forced their way into Benghazi, it would have been too late to do anything about it, if indeed his intent was a Srebernica-style massacre.

    I still think it was the right thing to do, given the information available at the time.
     
  7. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    I’m with Brumie in this one....

    The MENA volatility is in fact linked to climate change...

    https://climateandsecurity.org/2016...-yemen-water-climate-change-and-conflict/amp/
     
    American Brummie repped this.
  8. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Does that mean that white peoples should fear for their birthright? White lives matter!!!
     
    song219 repped this.
  9. charlie15

    charlie15 Member+

    Mar 9, 2000
    Bethesda, Md
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dude, you are really peddling in conspiracy theories now. If you think most of African countries would embrace a mythical "Gold dinar", I have a bridge to sell you over the Potomac. The Libya situation was a total mess but this Gold dinar thing is just a canard.
     
    rslfanboy repped this.
  10. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    +1 for using a French word within an English expression in a discussion of the Islamic gold dinar replacing the French franc.
    Bien fait!
     
  11. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Gold you say, old chap?

    download.jpeg
     
    roby and charlie15 repped this.
  12. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    It also said this:
    They also said this:
    and more directly from the Salon article, extensively quoting the report:
    and in answer to your truncated quote above about "unjustified certainty", here's more context rather than leaving it as a "to be sure":
    There's plenty more besides, but you can probably just go back and read the link.
     
    ceezmad repped this.
  13. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    As for this...see if you recognize any key players in this passage:
    In other words, it ain't my conspiracy theory to peddle.
     
    Moishe repped this.
  14. sitruc

    sitruc Member+

    Jul 25, 2006
    Virginia
    All lives matter.


    Oh. Damnit.
     
    dapip and crazypete13 repped this.
  15. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    I wasn't impressed with the Salon article, which was largely derivative of the UK report, but took a lot of it out of context. Fortunately the article provided a link to the UK report, so I could go to the original source. The report never said that intervention was the wrong decision, or that it was based on "***ing lies", as you suggested. It said that the decision to intervene was not adequately researched and was based on an incomplete understanding of the evidence.

    As for Gaddafi not taking revenge on the smaller towns his forces had retaken as an indication he wouldn't commit massacres in Benghazi--come on, really? If you're trying to get your opponents to lay down their arms, executing their brethren on other cities is probably not the way to persuade them. Once he had Benghazi he would have had the nucleus of the rebellion, and could do what he wanted with his captives. So I didn't find that argument to be particularly compelling. We know Gaddafi could be brutal in the manner some were saying he would not be in Benghazi.

    The bottom line for both pro and con on this question was: you either had to trust that Gaddafi would not be ruthless once he had Benghazi in his grasp, or not. We know what he said he would do: "house to house, room to room, exacting their revenge." Some argued that Gaddafii was just being rhetorical, that there would be no mass executions. Well, for those who argued that way, I think the burden of persuasion was on them, because if they were wrong, it could well have been Srebernica all over again.

    I think that NATO was right to intervene, and while the UK report indicates that the intelligence could have been better, nothing in the report gives me any further reason to believe that Gaddafi could be trusted if he had gotten his hands on Benghazi and the people trapped within.
     
    charlie15 repped this.
  16. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    Yet it provided MORE context than that which you made several of your arguments with, as demonstrated.

    I would not expect such a report to say either of those things directly. That would be impolitic.

    Yes, quite a bit of which was taking a blustery despot at his word (in a culture where face is prioritized above all else). The guy was, no doubt, an awful man capable of brutality, but it is extraordinarily common in the Middle East to engage in such rhetoric to get your "point" across. It is the same with Erdogan's speeches internally in Turkey. They have a very different, less literal meaning within Turkey than outside, much the same as Ahmadinejad's in Iran. Any leader in the region is much the same.

    But then executing them en masse is a really good way to do that?

    "Could be", not "absolutely will be". "Some were saying" is also a bullshit justification.

    That's absurd. That's utterly absurd. Invoking Srebrenica is a pure scare tactic and is begging the question right out of the gate.

    The British Parliament disagrees with your reading of its report, methinks.
     
  17. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    Srebernica is "absurd"? It's just a "scare tactic"? Did you read the report? It's right there on page 15, which I cited for you earlier. The "shadow of Srebernica" weighed heavily on the minds of the policymakers in the Libyan case.

    As for Gadaffi, because he is just one of those "blustery Middle East despots", we can ignore his vows to kill the people of Benghazi? I'm sure that would have been a great comfort to them if NATO had actually listened to those who would have left them at Gaddafi's mercy.

    And finally, on whether the Parliament would disagree with my reading of the report, "methinks" you're wrong, at least on the fundamental question of whether the decision to intervene was the correct one, because the report questions "how" the decision was made (as do I), and not whether the decision made was the right one.
     
    dapip and charlie15 repped this.
  18. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    No, INVOKING Srebrenica is absurd. Srebrenica itself was a tragedy.

    Yes, it is pretty much a scare tactic. Policymakers are not known for their ability to avoid fighting the last war (or several wars previous).

    We don't have the counterfactual situation, so we cannot make a true comparison. You can't be sure of anything at all in a situation that never happened.
     
  19. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    Srebernica was a "tragedy", but "invoking Srebernica is absurd." I honestly don't get it.

    The policymakers didn't want another Srebernica on their hands. Why is that so hard to believe?

    As for "not being sure of anything in a situation that didn't happen", I agree with that completely. It doesn't change the fact that policymakers had to make a decision, based on the information at hand. It turns out the information available could have been a lot better, but from the evidence I've seen, it was still a good faith decision motivated primarily by the desire to avoid a potential massacre.

    From the UK report:

    "The international community’s inability to prevent that act of genocide influenced a generation of Western politicians and policymakers. Dr Fox told us that “…another Srebrenica on our hands…was very much a driving factor in the decisionmaking at the time.” Lord Richards observed that “it would be a stain on our conscience for ever if we allowed another Srebrenica; I remember a lot of talk about Srebrenica”. Lord Hague also cited the influence of Srebrenica on his thinking. The Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Tobias Ellwood MP, referred to “the horrific examples of Srebrenica, and Rwanda before, which we saw unfolding again before us in Libya in 2011.” (pp. 15-16).
     
  20. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Jul 2, 2003
    Fornax Cluster
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ye men of little faith.
     
  21. charlie15

    charlie15 Member+

    Mar 9, 2000
    Bethesda, Md
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #46 charlie15, Feb 13, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    Can you provide a link to this article? Still conspiracy theory. The idea that part of Africa would leave the Franc CFA and jump into a mythical "Gold Dinar" under the leadership of Gadhaffi (with whom some of those countries have been at war forever) is simply farcical. You really don't know the dynamics of that region, do you?
     
  22. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    The link had already been provided. I was copying and pasting passages for the lazy.

    If you really need to find it without going a couple of pages back, you can search the internet for "british parliament libya report". The Salon article ought to be near the top, if not the top. Happy hunting.
     
  23. charlie15

    charlie15 Member+

    Mar 9, 2000
    Bethesda, Md
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Got that. Hardly convincing and vey much w/out substance. Dude, countries using the Franc CFA had no plans to move to a mythical Gold Dinar. That is a total myth. I was actually working in West Africa/ Gulf of Guinea at the time of the Lybia war and had a nice viewpoint there. That was never in the conversation in that region. Whatever issue they may have with the CFA, it is at least backed by the EU and the EUCB, a relatively stable situation.
    So beyond the fact that this story was never part of any regional agenda, to think they would leave that current arrangement to tie themselves with a Gadaffi (they mostly loathed and worried about) is laughable at best and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the region dynamics. Give me a break.....
     
    song219, Deadtigers, Hayaka and 2 others repped this.
  24. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sure the article does say that Benghazi was not an imminent humanitarian crisis as NATO made it sound, sure Gaddafi could have shown control of his military and maybe just killed a few rebels and civilians.

    It is bad to use a possible genocide to overthrow/attack an independent nation, it also svcks to stand and watch as a genocide happens.

    To me there is no right or wrong, but I can agree with people that want to consistently stay the fvck out, regardless of genocide or not, other wise we do look like hypocrites (I would say realists) picking and choosing when we intervene to stop a possible genocide, or when we do not.

    If we intervene to stop it, then there is no proof that it would have happened and we end up with Libya, if we do not intervene and it does happen, we end up with Syria.

    Is dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

    But if the west thinks Libya deserved intervention then what about North Korea?

    North Korea is doing to its own people much worse crimes that Gaddafi did to his people, yet I do not see many Democrats/Liberals rushing to the idea of invading North Korea to fix that humanitarian crisis. Yes the price of war in the peninsula in terms of South Koreans killed would be huge, so we sit here watching the people of North Korea starve or forced into labor camps to die and do nothing about it.

    Well it is perhaps because we are not really watching it that we can ignore the suffering of the people of Norht Korea.

    http://theweek.com/articles/450792/north-korea-isnt-nazi-germany--some-ways-worse

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx


    But hey, Kim Jung Un sister is running around in the Olympics shaking hands, lets just criticize Pence for not shaking her hand.


    BTW, my little rant is not directed at you 2, I am just using you as a springboard for it.
     
    Moishe and Timon19 repped this.
  25. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    What is there to get? The actual events at Srebrenica were tragic. Invoking Srebrenica completely out of context of both time and place as a justification is the absurd bit.

    Other would-be horribles that were imminent or in-progress:
    • Saddam gassing our troops within 45 minutes (Iraq War II).
    • The Domino Theory in southeast Asia ('Nam).
    • Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators (Iraq War I).
    I'm sure there are other instances where the pretext didn't quite line up with reality all that well.

    Because "policymakers" really, really frequently get it in their minds that something will happen without thinking much as to whether or not it is likely to happen. They then conflate the two. I imagine there are various reasons, both genuine and disingenuous for this.

    You've pulled a portion of a paragraph from the report that has a section title "The Shadow of Srebrenica". There's a whole bunch of other commentary on either side of it in the main section called "Intervention", and the bolded "takeaway" paragraphs do not reflect as kindly as you'd like to think they do on the Srebrenica-as-justification angle. The witnesses (policymakers) interviewed that the report remarks on in the Srebrenica section surely did state that they believed such a thing was imminent, but independent analysts looking at the same data (namely Prof. Joffe, Alison Pargeter, and Amnesty International) came to a different conclusion.

    I'm looking at the same report as you are. The conclusions reached by the Parliament committee are not favorable to the "SREBRENICA!!!!!" crowd. They may be moderately sympathetic, but they are not favorable.
     

Share This Page