August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) As in Egypt and Tunisia, in Libya too, I think this is now over. Key Libyan oil and oil product terminals to the east of the capital are in the hands of rebels who have seized control from leader Moammar Gadhafi, said residents of Benghazi who are in touch with people in region. LinkThe Greenstream Pipeline to Sicily from Mellitah, Libya has been shut but it is in a part of Libya apparently under rebel control. I may be wrong but I think that we will soon witness another failed Ceaucescu/Louis XVI-style disguised run to the border. Or maybe, Tchad will give Gaddafi asylum. What Arab regime/dictator is likely to fall next? I would bet Assad in Syria is worried. The sleepy regimes in the Gulf are not protected. (Bahrein would be in the international news now except for Libya.) The more likely Middle Eastern/Asian regime to collapse next would be Iran. But the biggest regime changer would be Saudi Arabia. (BTW, why is it called "Saudi" Arabia anyway?) ----- These regime changes have perplexed many, even the great geopolitical analysts Mark Steyn. A few weeks ago, when the remnant of Tunisia's Bourguiba and Egypt's Mubarak were falling, Steyn was writing about how only "friends of the West" were falling. (How terms change. Nasser and Assad, Mubarak's immediate predecessors, were hardly "friends of the West". Assad perhaps.) Anyway, now Gaddafi is about to fall. And no one except extreme/crazy anti-Americans could possibly describe Gaddafi as a "friend of the West". So Steyn now resorts to his old hobby-horse, demography. According to Steyn, young fanatical Arabs will take control of these political vacuums. Maybe. ----- I read something recently that compared these 2011 events in the Middle East with 1848 in Europe. 1848 was a year of revolt and revolution. But it wasn't a year of fundamental regime change. The popular revolutions in the West occurred in 1776 and 1789. Both revolutions had different outcomes but the main conclusion of both, a term constantly repeated in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya: People lost their fear. IMHO, once ordinary people lose their fear, when people realize that they can change a dictatorial regime - then they and their children and grandchildren think differently about life. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Saudi Arabia is called 'Saudi" Arabia because it is ruled by the Royal House of Saud... Haffez al-Aassad was not,and his son Bashar is NOT friends of the West...The Syrians are run by Ba'Athist nationalists,and thye,like Nasser,cozied up to the Soviets during the Cold War.. Who's next??? It would'nt shock me if Algeria is next...A few weeks ago it looked it... Yemen has not fallen yet...I notice they want to negotiate with "protestors"... The youth angle cannot be overstated.The disparity of wealth in these countries is so great and on such display and in the hands of a few older people...That it makes the anger visceral.Add to that unemployment and authoritarianism and it won't take much to set off that powder keg! I think there's a few countries on the same continent that are'nt getting talked about were the same demographic/wealth disparity/corruption/authrotiarian issues are front and centre,namely in Sub-Saharan Africa... Specifically Zimbabwe,Nigeria,Gabon,Cameroon,The Ivory Coast...Most with longstanding dictatorships,all with this societal anger simmering just under the surface.... Edited February 25, 2011 by Charles Anthony deleted re-copied Opening Post Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) (How terms change. Nasser and Assad, Mubarak's immediate predecessors, were hardly "friends of the West". Assad perhaps.)I meant Sadat, not Assad in the quote above. I would have just edited my OP but since JW has quoted my entire text, I guess I should post this correction.It also gives me the occasion to consider Sadat. Nasser was "anti-American". But then Sadat made peace with Israel. (Sadat's 1979 Arabic speech in the Nesset was a wonderful appeal to civility.) If one makes peace with Israel (Jews), does that make one a "right wing pro-American"? IMHO, these 2011 ongoing popular revolutions in Arabic/Islamic countries should not get mixed up in Western debates of Left/Right, or 1930s anti-semitism. ---- Rather, in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, I see ordinary people opposing tyrants/dictators. The end result may be Napoleon or Washington but once ordinary people - people like me and my grandparents, great-grandparents, names on gravestones, ancestors - understand that we can change things - the world is a different place. In this sense, I think Steyn is wrong. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Anyway, now Gaddafi is about to fall. And no one except extreme/crazy anti-Americans could possibly describe Gaddafi as a "friend of the West". The west has a conveniently short memory. Fortunately I and some others, do not. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41767365/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-gadhafiObama-8p.grid-2x2.jpg Quote
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) The west has a conveniently short memory.Who gives a sh*t about the memory of the "West"?People in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are dealing with this - it's their affair. ---- Sir Bandelot, you remind me of several women, Americans, and Western Leftists: "It's all about me." In this case, it's not. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Who gives a sh*t about the memory of the "West"? People in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are dealing with this - it's their affair. ---- Sir Bandelot, you remind me of several women, Americans, and Western Leftists: "It's all about me." In this case, it's not. Well... Seeing as every Western leader of note cozied up to Khaddaffi over the last decade,assisting in rehabilitating his image,all the while,paying no attention to the fact that he runs arguable one of the most repressive regimes on the planet... We're kinda indirectly complicit in this,to some extent... The question is 'Should we feel guilty about this?" You would do well to understand the history of Ba'Athism and it's motivations... We looked the other way in this region for along time...As long as these (Fascist) dictators played nicey nicey with Israel,kept the supply of oil coming,and,turned the other way while they eliminated any and all opposition internally...Everything was cool! Sadly,the Islamofascists have learned very well from their Ba'Athist task masters and I suspect we will all be dealing with them collectively in very short order... It's called blowback... Edited February 25, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Seeing as every Western leader of note cozied up to Khaddaffi over the last decade... Yes Jack Weber, you're right. It's all about the US, the West and you. You're so hawt.[/sarcasm]--- JW, ordinary people (mostly young men) in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are confronting these tyrannical regimes. I suspect that their courage is well beyond yours, or mine. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Yes Jack Weber, you're right. It's all about the US, the West and you. You're so hawt. Wrong... You went off on Sir Bandelot and I simply proved that he's not entirely incorrect... You should really stop pretending to be so erudite and open minded... You're quite two-dimensional... And please stop selectively quoting to make a specious point... It's very "Professoresque" and I'd hate to have to lump you in with that abject buffoon.... Edited February 25, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) You should really stop pretending to be so erudite and open minded... Fair enough. It's not my intention.I just dislike pretention. At heart, I'm a democrat. Saudi Arabia is called 'Saudi" Arabia because it is ruled by the Royal House of Saud...True? Amazing!I think there's a few countries on the same continent that are'nt getting talked about were the same demographic/wealth disparity/corruption/authrotiarian issues are front and centre,namely in Sub-Saharan Africa...Specifically Zimbabwe,Nigeria,Gabon,Cameroon,The Ivory Coast...Most with longstanding dictatorships,all with this societal anger simmering just under the surface.... Well, would we be talking about them if Bush Jnr hadn't invaded Iraq?---- Ordinary people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are not afraid. They will teach their children this basic courage. We, as Westerners, should rejoice. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Fair enough. It's not my intention. I just dislike pretention. At heart, I'm a democrat. True? Amazing! Well, would we be talking about them if Bush Jnr hadn't invaded Iraq? ---- Ordinary people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are not afraid. They will teach their children this basic courage. We, as Westerners, should rejoice. 1.No pretention with this Eastern Bastard...Ya' get the straight goods! 2.Absolutely true...Monarchy all the way for the Saudis.... 3.Because Bush jr.'s invasion of Iraq was a farce and not about spreading "democracy" at all...If only it was...Iraq is hardly a functioning democracy. 4.Don't mistake "freedom" for visceral anger...Out of chaos comes order... The questions are what kind of order and who will be the ones providing it??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
BubberMiley Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Sir Bandelot, you remind me of several women, Americans, and Western Leftists: "It's all about me." Yes, why is it that men, Canadians, and conservatives never worry about themselves? I think you just meant baby-boomers. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Michael Hardner Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Seeing as every Western leader of note cozied up to Khaddaffi over the last decade,assisting in rehabilitating his image,all the while,paying no attention to the fact that he runs arguable one of the most repressive regimes on the planet... Hi Jack, (Hijack, get it ?) This appears to me an unfair double-bind for the west. They were condemned when they took military action (unilaterally) against Khaddaffi - and that was one of the first unilateral military actions Reagan took. So, when they finally turned to diplomacy to diffuse ths situation over a long period of time, many welcomed that. It was, in the end, only an effort at harm reduction (he had been funding terrorism) and of course oil was behind it all, but nonetheless it was an effort. I don't feel that this is akin to a situation like Pinochet or a US-installed dictator that was friendly to them from the start. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Sir Bandelot Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Who gives a sh*t about the memory of the "West"? People in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are dealing with this - it's their affair. ---- Sir Bandelot, you remind me of several women, Americans, and Western Leftists: "It's all about me." In this case, it's not. As indicated, although the people of these lands have a legitimate reason to protest and demand a better life, our western leaders had no problem propping up their dictatorship, even when that government was proven to be an enemy of freedom and democracy. The buck is what brings our leadership to the table, and they are wiling to whore themselves for it, even to the point of self defeat. The fact that we have assisted these governments, to sustain themselves, even rewarded them for a greasy oil deal, adds to the misery of these people who live there and I'm quite sure if asked, they'd tell us all to go to hell. So when you come in here and tell your blatant LIES, that the west is not oomplicit and never supported those governments, it's my priviledge to point that out. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 ---- These regime changes have perplexed many, even the great geopolitical analysts Mark Steyn. That particular "great geopolitical analyst" is Ann Coulter, albeit with a finer turn of phrase and some knowledge of the performing arts. I wonder if he's "perplexed" that Iraq is not the tourist trap he predicted it would be by 2004? And he is, so far, the only person I've noticed to publically guffaw, with clear-eyed enjoyment, at the sexual humiliations and abuses of the detainees at Abu Ghraib (twice, to my knowledge); though I suppose his monumental moral degeneracy does not in itself counter claims about his genius at geopolitical analysis. The repeated errors in his analysis do this for themselves. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 I don't feel that this is akin to a situation like Pinochet or a US-installed dictator that was friendly to them from the start. No, I don't either. The democracies have to deal with dictators, to some degree. There is direct complicity in some cases, but not always. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
GostHacked Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 As indicated, although the people of these lands have a legitimate reason to protest and demand a better life, our western leaders had no problem propping up their dictatorship, even when that government was proven to be an enemy of freedom and democracy. The buck is what brings our leadership to the table, and they are wiling to whore themselves for it, even to the point of self defeat. The fact that we have assisted these governments, to sustain themselves, even rewarded them for a greasy oil deal, adds to the misery of these people who live there and I'm quite sure if asked, they'd tell us all to go to hell. So when you come in here and tell your blatant LIES, that the west is not oomplicit and never supported those governments, it's my priviledge to point that out. It seems someone else can see what is really going on. We are only fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. Good post. Quote
August1991 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Yes, why is it that men, Canadians, and conservatives never worry about themselves? I think you just meant baby-boomers. Good point, Bubbler. I learned this wonderful English expression: "Same diff."As indicated, although the people of these lands have a legitimate reason to protest and demand a better life, our western leaders had no problem propping up their dictatorship... Give it a rest, SB. When a neighbour leaves her violent husband, you're the wife who berates for lending him a lawn mower. Edited February 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Posted February 27, 2011 That particular "great geopolitical analyst" is Ann Coulter, albeit with a finer turn of phrase and some knowledge of the performing arts.I wonder if he's "perplexed" that Iraq is not the tourist trap he predicted it would be by 2004? I don't read Anne Coulter regularly but in this Year of Middle Eastern Revolt, Iraq (like Lebanon) is remarkably "stable".Disorganized, anti-government crowds in the streets of Beirut or Baghdad? What's new? ---- It is in Damascus and Riyadh that such demonstrations would be remarkable. Quote
August1991 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) No, I don't either. The democracies have to deal with dictators, to some degree. There is direct complicity in some cases, but not always.Fortunately, we now have few dictatorships to deal with compared to when I was born. People like Truman and Reagan had the courage to confront dictators.IMHO, the best way to deal with such dictators is to confront them openly, making it absolutely plain that we disagree, while supporting internal opposition. Between official opposition and internal support, I would choose internal support. Saudi Arabia? Iran? I would send the message that we oppose the regime politely/officially but we support secretly/unofficially ordinary people living in Arabia and Persia. When the Iranian/Saudi regimes fall - and they will - it is better if there is a viable alternative. And yes, we must take on Arabia. ----- Between Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, I have most hope for Libya. IME, Middle Easterners who work for Western oil corporations are often the most open-minded. They learn English, French or Italian. They are often young women who work as translators or secretaries, or male admin people. When western Leftists deride corporations, they fail to understand how such corporations "transfer technology". Libya is a country based on oil with a small population. Many Libyans are educated, and have dealt with Westerners. God knows but despite Gaddafi, I think Libyans will manage. Edited February 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) It seems someone else can see what is really going on. We are only fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. Good post.Clueless, Idiot, Don't-Know-What.GostHacked, these are major changes in the Middle East. (And imagine, they have nothing to do with the West, or the American Progressive/Left's agenda.) ----- Here's my take: Arab women want to touch hands/kiss/sleep with Arab guys. The best way to do it is to have a revolution. Edited February 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) I don't read Anne Coulter regularly but in this Year of Middle Eastern Revolt, Iraq (like Lebanon) is remarkably "stable". Iraq is not in any way stable. It is a catastrophe. I wonder where you get your information? The four million Iraqi refugees--a sixth of the entire population--would collapse with laughter, if they weren't suffering so badly. Disorganized, anti-government crowds in the streets of Beirut or Baghdad? What's new? Wanton ignorance, premised entirely on the adoration of the invaders who fucked everything up--what's new? Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Fortunately, we now have few dictatorships to deal with compared to when I was born. People like Truman and Reagan had the courage to confront dictators. ???? Reagan supported dictators. Not to mention terrorist militias who were objectively worse than Hamas or Hezbollah, by every standard you could name. IMHO, the best way to deal with such dictators is to confront them openly, making it absolutely plain that we disagree, while supporting internal opposition. Between official opposition and internal support, I would choose internal support. Reagan supported the violent, brutish, internal opposition (though often comprised of foreign fighters, so not plainly "internal") agaisnt democratic leaders. Reagan was a strong defender and supporter of dictators and terrorists. Did you honestly not know this? When western Leftists deride corporations, It's not "Western Leftists." Most people distrust and dislike corporations. Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
August1991 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Posted February 27, 2011 Reagan was a strong defender and supporter of dictators and terrorists. Did you honestly not know this?Reagan, Kennedy and Truman strongly defended the principle of individual liberty.----- As Westerners, we should simply stand aside with wonder at what ordinary people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have done. We should welcome them into the circle of civilized peoples. Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 Reagan, Kennedy and Truman strongly defended the principle of individual liberty. ----- As Westerners, we should simply stand aside with wonder at what ordinary people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have done. We should welcome them into the circle of civilized peoples. There were protests in Tunisia yesterday...Against the Bushy Bush "revolt"... What happens if they choose to be "uncivilized"???? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Reagan, Kennedy and Truman strongly defended the principle of individual liberty. Except for support for terrorists far worse than current official enemies,and the active support and defense of dictators, and the overthrowing of elected democratic governments. (Reagan and Kennedy were, to my knowledge, far worse than Truman in this regard.) Why do you insist upon reciting platitudes, rather than responding concretely? As Westerners, we should simply stand aside with wonder at what ordinary people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have done. I totally agree. It's extremely impressive. Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.