Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

None of that addresses the issues. Who is going to take the place of the current government? Who is poised to fill the void? The Muslim Brotherhood? AQ? Who?

The fact that Gaddifi's support is crumbling certaintly addresses the issue of how events are transpiring in Libya.

To answer your question, presumably the National Transitional Council with leaders including a guy with a doctorate in strategic planning from Univ of Pittsburgh, a guy who organized an earlier plot to overthrow Gaddifi, a guy with a doctorate in economics from Michigan State Univ, a human rights lawyer...

They have as much of a structure in place as the Egyptians after they tossed Mubarak out, including the basics a transitional plan.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

They have as much of a structure in place as the Egyptians after they tossed Mubarak out, including the basics.

Not exactly. Egypt had much outside contact and training even at the lowest levels of leadership. In particular were what and how its lower level military officers were trained. And similar knowledge gained via commercial enterprises. Libya has few people educated in concepts necessary for a democratic leadership. Even teaching foreign languages was all but banned in Libya to keep the people dumb and subservient.

Furthermore, rebel forces are many different and otherwise adversarial parties united only by one factor - a hate for Kaddafi. Once the common enemy is gone, then what?

Kaddafi is playing a wonderfully successful strategy to suck in the rebels, blast them back to Benghazi, and then suck them back in. His latest version makes air power less effective. It works because so little leadership and virtually no discipline exists among rebels ground forces. That knowledge will eventually come. But first the war must seesaw even for a full year. Rebel forces must learn to work with each other, learn about leadership, build common factors among who would otherwise be adversaries, understand concepts such as support and supply, and generally kill off so many peers to eventually earn and understand concepts not yet understood.

A quick fall of Kaddafi would be great in the short term and a long term disaster for Libya. Important in this war is for painful lessons to first be learned. A long war against a common enemy could be the catalyst that eventually creates a better Libya.

Just because a few top leaders are smart does not make a stable or productive country. Appreciate where most power must reside. And why western democracies are so successful. Among the little leaders (ie Captains and Sergeants) who finally learn concepts that western citizens take for granted. Libyans have been too isolated and too uneducated to have learned what makes a better human race. A long and painful war could be one solution. To teach so many Libyans how much they do not know and what is necessary to be able to learn.

Those lessons include respecting and cooperating with your adversaries. That means adversaries must spend a painfully long time together in the trenches. Where their number one purpose is to protect one another's lives.

This is summarizing what is necessary to "forge a nation". Kaddafi has spent 40 years destroying what is necessary to be a productive, peaceful, and growing nation. It will not be learned in months. A first step can be years suffering to earn a nation.

How long or at what expense did it take citizens of Lebanon, Cambodia, and Rwanda to finally learn these concepts? Libyians, with so many potential adversaries among the rebels and so little knowledge (grasp of the world), still have much to learn.

[TheMercenary]

Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has launched hundreds of Cruise Missiles into Libya inflicting major damage and killing civilians. He has also kept two wars going while ramping up the battle in Afghanistan.
Sounds like a warmonger.

Now, I’m not here to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of Obama’s war policy, just to point out the inconsistencies in the media’s reporting on the issue of Obama and his wars. Did I mention this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner launching these attacks? In getting that award he was honored for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I could make a joke out of that statement, but this is serious stuff.
First, notice how carefully the media works to not peg the invasion of Libya (yes, sending missiles is an invasion) on their Dear Leader. The international coalition is doing this, not Obama, is what they are telling us. Put that in the context of what the media told us with George W. Bush and Iraq.
Bush had 40 nations join the efforts in Iraq; do you think the media ever considered that war anything other than “Evil Bush’s War?” They still mention the Mission Accomplished banner in derision, long after the mission was actually successfully accomplished. Also, the media will rarely point out that this attack on Libya would not have happened without US backing. Had Obama said no, there would’ve been no “international coalition,” yes, it is that simple.
While I’m at it, Barack Obama can thank George W. Bush that Madman Gadafi doesn’t have nukes. It was Bush who talked Gadafi into sending his nukes to a warehouse in Tennessee where they can do no harm. This invasion of Libya would not be happening if Gadafi still had those nukes, without them, Gadafi is more of a neighborhood bully knocking his citizens around, those type are everywhere in the Middle East and Africa. Bad stuff indeed, but there’s no chance of a mushroom cloud right now and that fact changes everything. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize can look tough here because Bush had already removed Gadafi’s big gun. I’ve yet to hear the activist old media mention this vital fact.
One of the media’s favorite themes during the Bush administration was how he supposedly was “King George” who wanted to circumvent Congress and rule over America. Of course, this was a silly premise, but where are they now with Dear Leader ignoring Congress on the Libyan War? Granted, Obama does not have to get their approval, but even “Evil Bush” got Congressional approval for Iraq, twice. The media forgets/ignores that Democrats demanded a second vote approving Bush’s actions in Iraq shortly before the 2002 mid-terms so that they could show America that they were bullish on national security. The Democrats never mention their support of the Iraq War and the media helps them erase their multiple positive votes on taking out Saddam, remember, this was Bush’s War he waged for personal reasons — or perhaps it was for oil? Hmm –where are the “No Blood For Oil” signs from Code Pink and their friends? Will the media show us anti-Obama protests? The activist old media has been telling us (inaccurately) for the last two months that the rise in gas prices was because of Libyan oil, so will they conclude that Obama is starting this war because of oil? That’s an easy connection to make, but they’ll conclude Bush was a brainiac before they’ll say Obama went to war for oil.

Continues:

http://bigjournalism.com/rfutrell/20...a-a-hypocrite/

[TheMercenary]

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama responded.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...ve-power-unde#

[Fair&Balanced]

Two Andrew Breitbart columns. Nice!

Now there is an objective observer? What, no Beck or Limbaugh?

[TheMercenary]

No, Beck and Limbaugh are crazy. But if you would like to dispute their reports I would be glad to hear you try.

Now you attack the messenger. Isn't that a organized plan by Soros and his whores? Attack the messenger, don't dispute the message?

I would love to see you dispute his reports. Your turn.

Change your name to Unfair or at least Unbalanced. Your previous name quit like a big pussy.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.

Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.

There must be a popular uprising.

There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

The intervention must be limited.

It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.

These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.

And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.

We cant do it everywhere, nor should we.

For me, this is an appropriate time and place.

And the leader of the country must be linked to terrorism.

[classicman]

From your Wiki link ...

The National Transitional Council, is a body formed by anti-Gaddafi rebels during the Libyan Civil War.

So it is a war. just checking.

According to that link the US has not even recognized it yet. In fact the only ones to formally do so are France, Qatar and the Arab League.
**They have asked for it and have been in contact with many other countries**

Originally Posted by F&B

with leaders including a guy with a doctorate in strategic planning from Univ of Pittsburgh, a guy who organized an earlier plot to overthrow Gaddifi, a guy with a doctorate in economics from Michigan State Univ, a human rights lawyer...

again from your link ...

The identities of members of the council were not disclosed at the launch conference. What is known is that human rights lawyer Hafiz Ghoga is the spokesperson for the new council. An Al Jazeera English journalist in Benghazi stated that Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil still had a leadership role within the new council.[20] The Council declared that Jeleil is the head of the council.[4] The council met formally for the first time on 5 March 2011[4] when it was announced that the council has 31 members.[30] The names of some of the members are being kept secret to prevent threats to their families that are still in Government held areas of Libya.[31]

Can you help me out with this? Are you referring to one of the men mentioned here or was there more info?
Seriously, I find this fascinating. The formation of a new gov't and all. Especially from square one.

[Fair&Balanced]

I dont disagree with most of what you say.

I was speaking to the process of putting a transitional plan in place not the actual process of governing.

Where they fall short and are not as equally prepared at any level is the capacity to implement that plan if/when it comes to that.

I would expect a long slow slog that will require considerable outside support, including peace keepers to basic support and assistance in learning how to manage and provide government services and lots in between.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I was speaking to the process of putting a transitional plan in place not the actual process of governing.

Critical to that transition will be the training of civilian equivalents of Captains and Sergeants. Egypt already had many capable people. Libya apparently has few. How many or how few is not really known. But a transition to a stable nation will be much longer.

[ZenGum]

It looks to me that the rebels have a lot to do still. I don't know if Gdfi's regime is "crumbling". I've seen a few defectors, but it will have to be in large numbers to turn the battlefield. The rebels are still outclassed in number, weapons, logistics, strategy and discipline.

Although I fear for Libya, at least the intervention has helped keep the overall Arab revolt moving.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I don't know if Gdfi's regime is "crumbling". I've seen a few defectors, but it will have to be in large numbers to turn the battlefield.

Eventually military operations will result in negotiations at a peace table. Most of Kaddafi's people have no where to go. Critical to a peace settlement will be to give them an out. Currently none exists. And currently the military conditions are not yet ripe enough for any peace table talks.

Depending on how violent the warfare, this should probably continue for at least another month. Longer may be better for the long term stability of a settlement. But too many variables exist to really say how long it will take to, for example, discover a viable settlement. To get all parties so sick of war as to want that settlement. Critical to a settlement is for Kaddafi supporters to have someplace they might want to go. No such option exists yet. Only the very few who have something to offer in exchange have such options.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It looks to me that the rebels have a lot to do still. I don't know if Gdfi's regime is "crumbling". I've seen a few defectors, but it will have to be in large numbers to turn the battlefield. The rebels are still outclassed in number, weapons, logistics, strategy and discipline.

Although I fear for Libya, at least the intervention has helped keep the overall Arab revolt moving.

The suggestion that Gaddafi's regime is "crumbling" is not just the defections of former top political associates, but the freezing of assets by the US, EU, Canada, South Africa, Malta, Turkey, etc., and the fact that Gulf Cooperation Council and Italy appear ready to broker oil deals with the rebels on oil fields under rebel control.

There is a reason why Gadaffi has made overtures to Britain, Greece, Turkey and other nations over the weekend to explore a political or diplomatic solution. While the overture of having Gadaffi step down to be replaced by one of his sons is a non-starter, the fact that he is even approaching these countries would suggest that there is some "crumbling" going on.

[ZenGum]

The various news sources I read are talking about a "military stalemate". That, plus international pressure, could lead to a sort-of-forced sort-of-negotiated ousting of Gadaffy Gaduck without an absolute bloodbath.

Meanwhile has anyone noticed the "toothless" French have done a similar intervention in Sierra Leone, using helicopter gunships to strike the forces of Gbagbo who refused to admit he lost an election a few months ago. The rebels election winner legitimate government other side have pretty much taken the capital.

[TheMercenary]

LIBYA
'No blood for oil' is the chant not heard

"No blood for oil" was a popular slogan chanted by the left in opposition to President George W. Bush's push to send U.S. forces into Iraq. Now that President Obama has authorized Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, I have been waiting to hear chants of "no blood for oil." I am happy to report, I don't hear them.

I went to the No Blood For Oil website; its lead item opposes efforts to strike wolves from the endangered species list. In fact, as NATO forces are lobbing missiles to enforce a no-fly zone over the country with Africa's largest oil and gas reserves, the nobloodforoil.org domain name is for sale.


With a Democrat in the White House, the anti-war corner has a much more civil tone. Anti-war House members have asked the GOP leadership to schedule an up-or-down congressional floor vote on the use of military force in Libya. A perfectly reasonable proposal. Congress should take its constitutional responsibilities seriously.

Now the Obama administration is in the hot seat - crushed between critics who charge the White House was too slow to authorize a no-fly zone and those who claim it was too rash in authorizing cruise missile strikes before notifying Congress. Hawks fear that Obama's promise not to put "boots on the ground" will embolden strongman Moammar Khadafy to fight to retain power. Doves believe that Obama went back on his no-boots-on-the-ground promise by authorizing a CIA presence in Libya.

Now, there are some smart questions to be asking the Obama administration. Who are the Libyan rebels? Are al Qaeda operatives or other extremists in their ranks? Can they win? Without answers, it is impossible to support any call to provide them with arms. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen opposes such a move; Obama said he wouldn't rule it in or out.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1IQba5N7W