Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

angry tapir writes "Internet connectivity was restored in Tripoli late Sunday local time, as rebel forces took control of many parts of the capital city of Libya. A new mobile network set up by the rebels in the east of Libya in April, called Libyana Al Hurra, and a similar network in Misrata, will soon also be linked to the Libyana Mobile Phone network in Tripoli, said Ousama Abushagur, a Libyan telecommunications engineer in the U.A.E, who led the team that set up Libyana Al Hurra."

Comments

Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is the network only open to rebel causes, which is what I suspect.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[siddesu]

You should read the FA. For now, it is restored, as in "available where it was not until recently".

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Fluffeh]

I would assume that there is no way to currently pick who is "with or against" the rebels too easily once you take the folks who appeared on the TV either for or against the rebel cause.

I am much more worried about all the tales of atrocities that will now no doubt come to surface as lines of communication are given back to the population.

Not worried that it is getting out, but more of what has been done no doubt.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Opportunist]

Why not?

Internationally, the "old regime" has little support. And our news took care that no reports from them would be taken at face value. If anything, it would create an air of "look, they still think they can fool us".

And I doubt that the internet is the communication means of choice for Lybia. It would probably be the only country I'd know of where you use the internet and not TV to reach the masses.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you imagine that, even if so motivated, they could have gotten ideological censorship up and running so quickly?

Long-run, the ISP and the censor have the upper hand, because they touch every packet; but it takes time, money, and expertise to get to the point where you can go from shoving packets down the line as fast as you can and start burning system resources on the task of making service work in some ideologically convenient way...

(More broadly, given that the Libyan government spent some decades showing no intention of going anywhere, and maintaining a fairly tight grip, there is probably a very long list of people whose now-inconvenient history of cooperation with the outgoing regime in no secret at all. If the new chaps are still unsatisfied after they've worked through that backlog, the actual witch-hunting might begin; but there are still loads of active armed remnants and former public officials to deal with first...)

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very easy to pick who is against you -- everyone you did not authorize. If they aren't doing it, they are just stupid, or setting up traps for those who are stupid enough to fall into them. A country consisting of several tribes with the same culture as the Gaddafi's tribe hasn't gotten much of a chance for a "peaceful transition to democracy". If you need examples, just look at Iraq.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[mywhitewolf]

its a little different when you aren't invaded by a superpower who has decided "its time for democracy". but make the choice and act upon it out of mutual benefit to the society that is planning on the change.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it "a little different"? Is the Saudi government restricted in its ability to regulate shit according to the Sharia law because the US is propping it up? Are the other US-supported gulf regimes? Are the Iraqi separatist groups that rule the pieces of the country now? Are Afghans in the NATO-controlled ares free to do as they please?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[X.25]

Internationally, the "old regime" has little support.

The "old regime" had lots of support until few months ago.

But Gadaffi was a tough guy to deal with, so oil and infrastructure companies will have much easier time by simply putting their cronies into new 'democratic' government.

I mean, I've lived in 2 such countries, I still find it amusing to see how ignorant westerners are about these issues - they still believe it's somehow all done because of people and their freedom. Hahaha.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

Sure, without an external power to bribe, cajole, or merely annoy, you have even less incentive to cooperate with everyone else.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[hairyfeet]

I congratulate our brothers and sisters in Libya and wonder, what will be said when it happens here? Will they be called terrorists, or freedom fighters? Will our government do as old MoMo tried and do some mass slaughter to try to hang onto power, or will they slink away with their ill gotten gains like Mubarak did?

Don't say it could never happen here because I didn't think we'd be seeing tent cities and families living in cars like something out of the third world either. The bag of tricks at the Fed is completely empty now and congress can't keep up spending forever without our rating plunging further, and the teabaggers frankly can't stand anything given to the poor so they'll cockblock any aid packages anyway.

So I'd say its coming, probably in less than a decade. When the kids my oldest goes to school with at the local college are openly wondering if the shit will hit the fan before they even graduate? BAD sign. When the REAL numbers have one in three unemployed and their bullshit numbers have one in 6? BAD sign. When the government has blocked ALL COL adjustments while having the brass balls to say "there is no inflation" while they give THEMSELVES COL adjustments? Bad sign. I give us another decade tops. Then we'll either collapse or the government will try to take Poland for the resources (read South America) because one way to deal with massive unemployment is to have them build tanks or get killed at the front. Either way it ain't gonna be pretty folks.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

But Gadaffi was a tough guy to deal with, so oil and infrastructure companies will have much easier time by simply putting their cronies into new 'democratic' government.

I mean, I've lived in 2 such countries, I still find it amusing to see how ignorant westerners are about these issues - they still believe it's somehow all done because of people and their freedom.

So the West gets its oil and Gaddafi gets booted? Sounds good ending to me unless you should ever have a better idea than just sneering at the low-grade hypocrisy.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are you ready to do your part? If you are, we will dispatch you a set of glasses. Please throw away the gum and procure a shotgun yourself, thank you.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[LordLimecat]

Don't say it could never happen here because I didn't think we'd be seeing tent cities and families living in cars like something out of the third world either. The bag of tricks at the Fed is completely empty now and congress can't keep up spending forever without our rating plunging further

Hate to burst your bubble, but the poverty rate is quite low in our country, and the bar for poverty is quite a bit higher in this country the average income for the majority of the world. For example, Cuba's average income is about 8k a year, and our poverty line is about $16k per year.

Thats not to say things are perfect, but there are an incredible number of people who pay no rent or pay no taxes and whose lifestyles are partly or wholly paid for by the government.

I might remark that THAT is a problem when we have trouble reining in our spending.

and the teabaggers frankly can't stand anything given to the poor so they'll cockblock any aid packages anyway

Such displays of eloquence do wonders for your credibility and the power of your argument.

But I will note that giving poor people loads of guarenteed no-strings money has never worked, not here, not in somalia, not pretty much anywhere. If you incentivize not working, people will not work, or will find a way to exploit the situation.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

If the new chaps are still unsatisfied after they've worked through that backlog, the actual witch-hunting might begin

The witch-hunting has been going on since the fighting broke out. Did you miss all the shootings / beheadings / burning alive videos by rebels on YouTube?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

So the West gets its oil and Gaddafi gets booted?

The issue is not so much whether Gaddafi gets booted, but rather who comes in his place. Do you seriously believe that Libya will now become a secular democracy? What will happen to their quality of life (which was consistently highest on the continent)?

Contrary to popular opinion, people can get fucked just as well in a democracy. Even worse, an unstable democracy can easily give way to an even more brutal dictatorship - Nazis enjoyed broad electoral support, and Afghanis approved the constitution that contains clauses making Sharia above any other law of the land, and which are immutable and cannot be amended by the normal (or any other) process.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

The issue is not so much whether Gaddafi gets booted, but rather who comes in his place. Do you seriously believe that Libya will now become a secular democracy? What will happen to their quality of life (which was consistently highest on the continent)?

I don't care whether Libya becomes a democracy or not. I'm interested more in strengthening the precedent of knocking over dictators for any pretext whatsoever. The less secure that job becomes, the easier it'll be to transition these governments to more democratic ones.

Contrary to popular opinion, people can get fucked just as well in a democracy.

Then you should be able to come up with evidence to support your claim. Note that I read what you wrote first. Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over and the end of that democracy was obvious for quite some time. As to Afghanistan, one shouldn't get hysterical just because they adopt elements of Sharia. While I consider the whole of Sharia unfit for a system of law and justice, it does have workable parts. Besides a wholesale adoption of Sharia isn't happening in Afghanistan.

And that brings me to the obvious point. Keep the democracy and the problems you claim democracies can lead to, don't happen.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over

It was a democracy which brought him to power. Of course, the very first thing he did then was remove those same mechanisms to prevent any would-be contenders. Then comes the time for a fuck-up.

As to Afghanistan, one shouldn't get hysterical just because they adopt elements of Sharia. While I consider the whole of Sharia unfit for a system of law and justice, it does have workable parts.

I dunno, do you think the parts where conversion from Islam to another faith is punished by death are "workable"?

Besides a wholesale adoption of Sharia isn't happening in Afghanistan.

Their constitution literally says that the whole of Sharia is the supreme law ("In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam") above everything else, even the constitution. Their judges agree (which is why Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy despite constitution providing for freedom of religion).

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Rei]

Despite the efforts of Gadhaffi to try to pit one tribe against another, this revolt still happened. There are no tribal lines in the rebellion. It's doctors, teachers, engineers, students, just a cross-section of society. Imagine that, people being sick of a murderous 40-year cleptocracy.

But no, those dumb towel-heads can't handle democracy, right? They need a brutal, oppressive strongman to keep their primitive rage in check, right?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[he-sk]

The electoral support of the Nazis was waning in 1933 and indeed they gained power by terrorizing the opposition. Hitler convinced Hindenburg to outlaw the communist party after blaming the Reichstag fire on them. Their deputies were subsequently arrested in mass. The conservatives somehow believed they could hold Hitler in check and abdicated their parliamentary responsibilities. Only the social democrats stood up to him to the bitter end.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[he-sk]

Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over and the end of that democracy was obvious for quite some time.

Care to explain?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Rei]

In Libya, the most oil-rich country in Africa, one of the world's largest oil producers, has the highest GDP to population ratio in Africa, but little of the money actually makes it down to the general population. It's a cleptocracy.

Here, how about this. Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[beelsebob]

You realise that Gaddafi was there in the first place because it let the west get their oil? It turns out great when we do this, doesn't it.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

Care to explain?

The German military had started planning a new total war from the 20s. Read up on the history of Heinz Guderian. As a planner for the Weimar Republic military, developed a number of battle tactics for the German military (that is, blitzkreig and combined arms) that required vast numbers of troops (far more than the puny 100,000 that Germany was allowed to have by treaty) and used weapons and troops in ways that no potential enemy could do or was planning to do. Within ten years, Hitler was in charge building that very military, using those very tactics. The Junkers also threw their weight behind Hitler. Their antipathy towards the Weimar Republic was also well known.

It was not a matter of "if", but "who" and "when" for the dissolution of the Weimar Republic and its replacement by an authoritarian government. Hitler just happened to be the one who ended up on top.

Second, Hitler's abuses didn't really start until he had dissolved the Republic. That happened rather quickly once he became Chancellor.

So there you have it, powerful groups with interest in dissolving the Weimar Republic combined with plans, made years before, for what to do after that Republic was dissolved. Count also the two depressions, and you have obvious signs of the end of the Republic. And of course, the timeline of Hitler's rise to power shows that he acted cautiously until the debris of the Republic was swept away.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

It was a democracy which brought him to power. Of course, the very first thing he did then was remove those same mechanisms to prevent any would-be contenders. Then comes the time for a fuck-up.

That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.

I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

little of the money actually makes it down to the general population.

Admittedly a lot of it served to line up the pockets of Gaddafi's family, no doubt about that. But I wouldn't call the remainder little, by any measure. They really did have excellent healthcare and education.

Heck, remember that story about Libyan students in US in danger of being kicked out because Libyan government accounts were frozen, and it's what paid the tuition fees for all these guys (and also their living expenses)? How much does it cost to study in US for a foreigner, again? Especially ironic considering that those same students were mostly anti-Gaddafi - so you can't even call that corruption and be done with it.

Here, how about this. Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?

I'm not an American to begin with.

Nonetheless, there is a crucial difference between your hypothetical scenario, and what's happening in Libya. The first one involves an already working democracy being replaced by a dictatorship. The second one involves a dictatorship being replaced by... who knows? but most likely scenario seems to be an "Islamic republic" along the lines of Iran (i.e. a theocracy).

I much prefer the US, true, but given the choice between Libya and Iran, I think I'd prefer to live in Libya.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Hognoxious]

Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?

If I was a Rebublicon, I'd say "You mean like Obama?"

If I was a Dumbocrat, I'd say "You mean like Bush?"

If I was from any other party it wouldn't matter, nobody would be listening anyway.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.

Better yet, never even have them. You can always slap a sticker saying "democracy" on whatever turd there is. All that matters is that the big boys accept it at face value - the same thing can be officially recognized as a sham, as in China or Iran, and then pretended to be meaningful, as in Afghanistan.

I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.

Personally - as an atheist - I'd much prefer a dictatorship that leaves my personal beliefs alone to a democracy that makes them a capital crime. I think I'm not alone in that.

Unstable democracies have a tendency to devolve into mob rules. And a mob can be much more brutal and bloodthirsty than your average dictator.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trolling or did you just fail to engage your brain in your rush to post something politically correct? The desire for change is universal, it's how to implement that change that will cause the issues. The majority of the country can get behind removing Gadhaffi, but when it comes to how to replace him you can certainly expect arguments and deals and infighting. Even in a democracy this is the case. That's what GP was talking about - you seem to be using the current climate as definitive proof that they will continue working together in harmony, somehow I can't see that happening.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it charmingly naive of you to believe that the USA doesn't already have that. 43% of wealth in the USA is owned by 1% of the population. The bottom 80% of the population share only 7% of the country's money. How does that not sound like a cleptocracy where those at the top gain riches beyond measure while the vast majority of the people receive a tiny fraction of the wealth? Put a shiny democracy sticker on it and label it capitalism and suddenly it's okay for the rich to steal from the poor? I wish I lived in your dream world, I really do :-)

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Tsingi]

Are Afghans in the NATO-controlled ares free to do as they please?

No, they are living in a tyrannical regime controlled by a hostile invader and must act anonymously.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Tsingi]

the teabaggers frankly can't stand anything given to the poor so they'll cockblock any aid packages anyway.

That's in the US. Helping American citizens to live better lives, which was the original job of the US government, is no longer a priority.

Libya is a different matter. The US will be right there, chequebook in hand. ready to help out with rebuilding the country. (Read, the cheque will go to Haliburton.) Providing of course that you accept the next puppet government, and don't mind things going back to the way they were with a new despot at the reigns.

War is big business, we can't have democracies all over the place.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Tsingi]

It was a democracy which brought him to power. Of course, the very first thing he did then was remove those same mechanisms to prevent any would-be contenders. Then comes the time for a fuck-up.

That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.

Like what is happening in the good ole U S of A? Read the history of the NAZI regime, then take a look at US history, and spend an afternoon watching a flock of sheep. Note the similarities.

I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.

The middle east will continue to be ruled by tyrants installed by the US. These little hiccups are to be expected and dealt with.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Tsingi]

Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?

If I was a Rebublicon, I'd say "You mean like Obama?"

If I was a Dumbocrat, I'd say "You mean like Bush?"

If I was from any other party it wouldn't matter, nobody would be listening anyway.

LOL! Right, there doesn't appear to be any difference between the two, except Obama is literate.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[BigDogCH]

I agree entirely. Excellent points. Also, I would like to point out that Americans are still driving to the store to buy 1 or two items....so clearly they are not hurting that bad. Processed food costs more than staples, yet it still sells. Gas is considered expensive, even though Americans are still sitting in their work parking lots during break times with the car running (usually smoking while on their expensive cell phones, also expensive). Americans have no idea what true poverty even is. Heck, my family is well below what is considered poverty in our area.....and we actually feel like we are pretty well off. Go figure. Our kids could get free school lunch even, but we turn it down.

I disagree with this point however.

But I will note that giving poor people loads of guarenteed no-strings money has never worked, not here, not in somalia, not pretty much anywhere. If you incentivize not working, people will not work, or will find a way to exploit the situation.

It would seem that those who do not work are taking the path of least resistance. Crime seems to be that path when they are not paid to sit quietly.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[DigiShaman]

That's why each election is a mini-revolution. Without a system of representation, you will eventually have one big revolution. Don't let a vast disconnect grow and fester within a nation.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[gomiam]

The majority of the country can get behind removing Gadhaffi, but when it comes to how to replace him you can certainly expect arguments and deals and infighting. Even in a democracy this is the case.

Then your case about their (possibly) not being ready for a democracy loses a lot of its strength, doesn't it? I mean, if arguments, deals and infighting happen in democracies, how can you argue they are not ready for democracy just because they will have arguments, deals and infighting after getting rid of Gadhaffi?

And I can't find where Rei has stated that harmony will continue. I only read his stating that the reaction has been tribe-agnostic, and ridiculing some concept of tribe as incompatible with democracy.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, my family is well below what is considered poverty in our area.....and we actually feel like we are pretty well off. Go figure. Our kids could get free school lunch even, but we turn it down.

Well below? Really? I doubt that. Free school lunches get offered at 130% of the poverty line, but I really doubt you're well below the poverty line. What family size and annual income, and what state?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[LordLimecat]

I know folks who are well below the poverty line-- some of them well. They still have tv, and cell phones, and a house.

I also know a number of folks who so not work because of government handouts. I do not mean to comment on their specific situation-- it is possible they have a good reason; but the point is they will NEVER work so long as they do not have to, because every individual THINKS they have a good reason.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymus]

Most people in developing countries skipped landlines altogether and went straight to cell phones.

I'm hoping the same thing can happen with forms of government and they can bypass democracy altogether and find something better ;)

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Rei]

You honestly can't tell the difference between people getting your money because you bought a product from them and people getting your money because they have a gun to your head?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Chris Burke]

So, are you ready to do your part? If you are, we will dispatch you a set of glasses. Please throw away the gum and procure a shotgun yourself, thank you.

Why throw away the gum?

"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I enjoy multi-tasking!" *boom*

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Rei]

What on Earth about this "seems to be an Islamic republic"? Have you not paid attention to a single thing stated by the TNC? Read any of their draft documents? They're pushing more liberal policies than we have here in the US.

The reason those students can't cover their rent, FYI, is because in this "wealthy" country, the average personal income is a mere $200 a month, and maintained that way by law #15. Programs like those to fund students overseas affect a tiny percentage of the population, and exist in order to bring educated talent back to the country (to run industry, etc).

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Tarsir]

So what preparations are you making for the coming dystopian collapse?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

What on Earth about this "seems to be an Islamic republic"? Have you not paid attention to a single thing stated by the TNC? Read any of their draft documents? They're pushing more liberal policies than we have here in the US.

I don't care about what they say, I care about what they do.

When Chechens fought and won their war of independence from Russia back in 1996, they also had a very liberal program on the paper. Their constitution was largely copied from European ones, and claimed to institute a secular democratic state. Of course, a year after they already had a "Ministry of Sharia Security", headed by a Salafi fanatic; and public executions on the streets.

Meanwhile, I've seen the videos on YouTube. Excuse me if I don't find rebels burning a man alive, tearing his charred heart out, and parading it around the streets of the city - to cheers of the mob - the pinnacle of "liberal policies".

Heck, for all it matters, TNC can consist of true bleeding heart liberals, and they claim to be the new government, but I have my doubts about whether they will remain one for long after the victory.

The reason those students can't cover their rent, FYI, is because in this "wealthy" country, the average personal income is a mere $200 a month, and maintained that way by law #15.

Personal income is relative. $200 is nothing in US, but then little in US is free.

FWIW, I'm not claiming that Libya was a first-world country under Gaddafi - most certainly not. This would be a pointless comparison, anyway. But relative to its neighbors - yes, it was much better.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[BigDogCH]

I agree entirely, I know some as well. I just wanted to point out that crime may increase as a result.....so the true cost may also go up. Giving money out to bums keeps the money in this economy, at first anyway. There are other government programs which spend the money in far less economically beneficial ways. By my own logic however, the increase in crime would keep the prison and legal systems well funded, also spending money in this economy. I am just saying, it isn't as one sided as you propose.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give up the latest electronics, stop buying consumable items you can't afford (anything that requires payments), and live close to work; you will be surprised how far 20k per year can go. It will be a better country when Americans can figure this out.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know folks who are well below the poverty line-- some of them well. They still have tv, and cell phones, and a house.

I also know a number of folks who so not work because of government handouts. I do not mean to comment on their specific situation-- it is possible they have a good reason; but the point is they will NEVER work so long as they do not have to, because every individual THINKS they have a good reason.

I'm not seeing any numbers here, and I've heard far too many made-up stories like this in the past. How do you know they're below the poverty line? TVs and cell phones can be had for very little money. I sold a TV that worked just fine last year on Craigslist for $20. Healthy food, reliable transportation, quality time to spend with your children, sufficient education to get a decent job, those things come at greater cost. You guys seem to generalize a lot. I've worked with homeless people and those who were just barely getting by. Aside from the mental issues being very common among those groups and their general inability to get any real health care, they aren't exactly living high on the hog at taxpayer expense. Their lives are not easy or comfortable. They live under constant stress and anxiety, and often fear. It ain't pretty. Right now we have 50% of the population sharing 2.5% of the wealth of the country. Saying that they shouldn't be getting any help from those that control the vast majority of the wealth is just rather despicable.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[he-sk]

It was not a matter of "if", but "who" and "when" for the dissolution of the Weimar Republic and its replacement by an authoritarian government. Hitler just happened to be the one who ended up on top.

That is a far-fetched assertion. Just because there are elements plotting to overthrow a regime doesn't make said overthrow inevitable.

Second, Hitler's abuses didn't really start until he had dissolved the Republic. That happened rather quickly once he became Chancellor...

And of course, the timeline of Hitler's rise to power shows that he acted cautiously until the debris of the Republic was swept away.

History doesn't agree with you.

(1) Hitler putshed in Bavaria in 1923 and was convicted to 5 years in prison for it. (He was released after 9 months for "good behavior.") It was in prison where he wrote his seminal work in which he was pretty open about his hatred for any democratic regime and his plan to overthrow it using "democratic" means.

(2) The SA (the early paramilitary wing of the NSDAP) had clashed with the communists and social democrats since the 1920s. Nothing cautious about these street battles, either.

(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.

(4) Before the "dissolution" of the Weimar republic (which legally never happened), the Prussian state government was overthrown and Prussia was directly administered by the Reich. That wasn't done by Hitler, but it played directly into his hands, because the Prussia would have been in a strong position to defy Hitler.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[BigDogCH]

"Saying that they shouldn't be getting any help from those that control the vast majority of the wealth is just rather despicable."

This is not really what the conversation was about; we were discussing how handouts may relate in some way to crime and increased unemployment. You are correct however, the wealth difference is despicable. While I agree with your sentiment, and agree that there are individual exceptions, I do not really think that healthy food, reliable transport, nor quality time with your kids have to be expensive. People use that excuse to eat junkfood, drive a car they cannot afford, and let someone else raise their kids. Laziness seems to be the problem for the majority (not all) of those struggling economically that I know well. The path of least resistance needs to be carefully mapped for a majority of the population "to succeed". The homeless you speak of are the very poor. The general poverty group is usually defined as the lowest 10 to 20 percent of the population here in the US. Few of those are homeless.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

That is a far-fetched assertion. Just because there are elements plotting to overthrow a regime doesn't make said overthrow inevitable.

As it turned out, it was German military and industry, right there. They weren't just "elements". Second, Hitler did act cautiously. 1923 was not 1932. He learned and cleaned up his act.

The SA (the early paramilitary wing of the NSDAP) had clashed with the communists and social democrats since the 1920s. Nothing cautious about these street battles, either.

Teflon. Hitler wasn't involved in those clashes. His image stayed shiny.

(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.

The real action didn't start till 1934. Stuff like Night of the Long Knives.

(4) Before the "dissolution" of the Weimar republic (which legally never happened), the Prussian state government was overthrown and Prussia was directly administered by the Reich. That wasn't done by Hitler, but it played directly into his hands, because the Prussia would have been in a strong position to defy Hitler.

Yep. Mighty convenient. You might want to look at who did that and how they dealt with Hitler afterwards. I actually see this as confirmation of my original claim. It's one thing to have a single politician knocking over the props, one by one. It's another when there's numerous politicians from different parties all chipping away at the edifice.

As final evidence, I want to point out the rapidity of the German military build up. For example, an invasion of France required that the Germans overtake the French military without giving the other European powers time to build up their own forces in response. I think the logistics behind this maneuver was more sophisticated than anything on the battlefield. Some of it was clearly the Nazi's doing such as using the SA as a pool to draw on when they jump started conscription and broke the Treaty of Versailles.

But I don't see that the Nazi's had the military logistics experience to design and build the new large German military. That I suspect started with the German military and perhaps sympathetic industrial leaders prior to Hitler's rise to power.

I guess to summarize my point of view coherently, history has the Nazis rising to power and consolidating that power internally by mid 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. The Germans then had to build up their military fast enough that they could overtake the major military powers without triggering an arms race. That's roughly six years from 1934 to the invasion of France in 1940. I suppose it could be possible for the Nazi wonders to get manufacture of tanks, planes, and ships ready in that time frame, but at this point we're taking some Nazi propaganda on faith.

Reading history, it's pretty clear that a lot of people high up in the German leadership undermined the Weimar Republic, such as Hindenburg who made several moves over the years to undermine the legislative branch and allowed Hitler to consolidate power in 1933.

So here's my alternate proposal. Back at some point around 1928-1930, it was decided to remove the Weimar Republic, but there was two big problems. How to get to that point and who would be in charge. The military developed either on their own or in conjunction with industrialists plans for rebuilding German forces. Guderian's approach may not have been adopted at first, but he probably was influential in getting good tank and dive bomber designs, for example.

Meanwhile Hindenberg served as the final arbiter for who would rise to power. Several politicians vied for the honor, Hitler eventually joined that group, though he was not favored due to his politics, dislike by Hindenberg, and perhaps breeding. 1932

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[he-sk]

Most of what you say is true, especially that they were many and diverse elements who wanted to get rid of the republic. Von Papen (the guy who overthrew the Prussia government) is a good example, but he never wanted to see Hitler in power. And it is also true that the military build-up began before Hitler took power, the Luftwaffe is a good example. To say something good about Hindenburg though, AFAIK he always acted within the confines of the Weimar law.

Anyway, I still take issue with your view that history as it turned out was inevitable. If you want to take that view then the root causes lie much earlier. I'm thinking of the Faustian pact that Friedrich Ebert made in 1919 or 1920 with the right-wing military establishment to put down the general strike.

And then there's this:

(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.

The real action didn't start till 1934.

Tell that to the communist and social democratic deputies who were brutalized in the run-up to the 1933 election. If you can read German, I suggest you read the speech by Otto Wels from the SPD before the passage of the Enabling Act. It was the last free speech in the Reichstag for a long time and it is very enlightening.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

People use that excuse to eat junkfood, drive a car they cannot afford, and let someone else raise their kids. Laziness seems to be the problem for the majority (not all) of those struggling economically that I know well. The path of least resistance needs to be carefully mapped for a majority of the population "to succeed". The homeless you speak of are the very poor.

I have no idea what you think of as poor people, but the poor people I know take the bus because they don't have cars. I happen to spend plenty of time at the grocery as well. I eat very healthy food, and I know quite well that fresh fruits, veggies, meats, etc., cost a lot more than box or frozen dinners and junk food. When you're poor and trying to feed your kids, you want to feed them healthy stuff, but more than anything you don't want them to be hungry. So you go with what you can afford that provides the most calories (which is generally what makes you feel full). Unfortunately, this is also likely to make them fat.

The general poverty group is usually defined as the lowest 10 to 20 percent of the population here in the US. Few of those are homeless.

10 to 20% is a hell of a lot of people, and somewhere around a million of them are homeless at any given time. Any way you slice it though, there's half the country with only a miniscule fraction of the wealth between them, and this is the very same half of the country that the conservative talking heads are always berating for not paying enough taxes! How are they supposed to pay more taxes when they only have 2.5% of the wealth? Blood from a stone?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[siddesu]

You honestly can't tell the difference between people making money and getting free money? Like this? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html. You're cute.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

By a strange quirk of evolved usage, a 'witch hunt' is only a 'witch hunt' if there is substantial reason to believe that the witches you are hunting aren't actually witches. I'm assuming that, for the moment, there are still enough known regime enthusiasts available that they haven't started to descend into increasingly paranoid and erratic cullings...

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[shutdown -p now]

Well, there were also numerous cases of persecution of black Libyans by the rebels, under the premise that they are "foreign mercenaries" or some other kind of fifth column. The refugee numbers speak for themselves there. I think that qualifies for a witch hunt in the strictest sense.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Reservoir Penguin]

The real 3rd world grade poverty that is engulfing America is still hidden (but not for long) from what remains of the middle class. This person from the excellent "Voices of the unemployed" used to have a job and a future, now he is faced with starvation
br>

"My family is eating stir-fried dandelions out of yards to keep from starving."

Some are lucky enough to find a palace an one of the numerous tent cities that have sprouted around major population centers.

When your time comes to lose your job, car and house will you still blame the poor for resorting to crime in order to feed themselves?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[BigDogCH]

I guess I do not understand how someone can starve in America. On my walk to work I can find enough change on the ground to buy a 2 pound container of dry goods at the local market. Heck, the number of fruit trees that people do not harvest from their yards indicates that food is still aplenty in the US. We are increasing our food exports to China afterall. Food is the one thing we have plenty of in the US.

Dandelion greens and other plants are always an option too.... based on your logic, things must be getting better. My parents and grandparents used to pick greens to stay alive, along with many extended family members. Not anymore. Now they garden them. The idea is the same however.

What percent of the population is living in these tent cities? You truly believe that this will happen to the entire middle class? Do you think then that 90% of the homes in this country will be empty? Really? Don't you think that maybe the home prices would drop....that supply-and-demand thing? Do you notice that prices are still dropping and home construction has stalled? It would seem to me, we have more than enough homes, which is why building more is not really what the market desires.
If people wouldn't buy a house and car they couldn't afford, they wouldn't lose them when times get tough. There are a few exceptions, but after the purchase price, you should just have the maintenance, utilities, and taxes. Americans do not buy a house they can easily afford, they buy one they can barely afford. Then they make payments on a car; a product that will eventually be worthless. Do we have problems with the wealth being sucked out of America? Yup. Does that mean you should be starving already in this country? Nope.

Also, I never said that I would blame the poor for anything. Please read again. I fully expect someone who is starving to steal if that means they can feed their family.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Rei]

Little in Libya is free either. $200 is still poverty in Libya. Which is why as soon as people saw an opening, spontaneous revolts broke out in nearly every city in the country. Gadhaffi then crushed most of them, and would probably have driven over the remaining ones had NATO not stepped in.

As for the videos you refer to from (with the background of people shouting things like "la haram!" (It's forbidden!) and telling them to stop.... would you kindly explain to me how the Transitional National Council, which formed on Feb. 27th, ordered said events on the riots that overthrew Gadhaffi's control of Benghazi on Feb. 17th? Beyond that, if your main source of information is unconfirmed videos on YouTube, how do you reconcile that with the fact that Gadhaffi has been caught over and over and over again by reporters pumping out fake anti-rebel propaganda, from the planted bodies at the bombing sites to the "confiscated drugs" (from his bizarre claim that the rebels were just gangs hopped up on drugs) which were medicines his soldiers took from a local hospital? Do you really think that someone who's been caught practically every day doing stuff like that wouldn't set up YouTube videos?

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give up the latest electronics, stop buying consumable items you can't afford (anything that requires payments), and live close to work; you will be surprised how far 20k per year can go. It will be a better country when Americans can figure this out.

Poor people don't have the latest electronics. They have old stuff they got for cheap from richer people who were upgrading. Living close to work can be prohibitively expensive. I know it would be for me, as all the real estate within 20 miles of where I work is too damn expensive. When I worked in the commercial moving industry, I still couldn't be close to work because the entire area around the job office was zoned for industrial use or the military. No residential around there. Poverty line for a family of four is about $25K/year. That's damn little for four people to live on once you factor in rent, food and transportation. Education? Probably won't get it since you can't afford it, so good luck improving your situation. Health care probably doesn't get factored in since we are apparently too stupid as a country to start providing it to everyone. Instead we just pay through the nose for emergency room visits for people who should never need them, but have no other options.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[BigDogCH]

It sounds like we agree on everything, except what it means to be poor. Maybe it is because I grew up poor. You are correct about the wealth distribution.....but the poor here in the midwest have nothing but themself to blame. The could easily become middle class with a bit of effort. This brings us to your point......is it worth the effort to become middle class as the quality of life there is slowly sucked dry. I thought we were talking about those without even food however.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[gomiam]

I would hope so... but it seems that democracy still is the least bad of all political systems.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak in generalizations, as if you know how all these people came to be in their situation. Yet, in truth, you know nothing of them or their lives and are just making statements that allow you to comfortably hold on to your preconceived notions.

Re:Do they allow everyone?

[khallow]

Tell that to the communist and social democratic deputies who were brutalized in the run-up to the 1933 election.

Sure I will! Oh wait, they got shot, imprisoned, or fled the country in the years after 1933.

Who is the new dictator?

[Dyinobal]

I know I shouldn't be so cynical but I have to ask who is the new dictator? It seems like every time I read about some rebel group over throwing some government things really never get better. It's just a new dictator in place of the old. Maybe I'm wrong and Lybian's will get a government that is fair and some what workable but I'm not going to put money on it.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as the old one... the U.S.A.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no. France, with NATO backing and U.S. participation will be in charge from here on out. The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy - and was doing too much business with China. That's been fixed now, thanks to an insurgent force recruited, funded, trained, armed and directed by a NATO coalition, operating under active air cover and full spectrum propaganda provided by the aforementioned foreign powers.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't a rebel group, though, this was a spontaneous uprising involving numerous people across the country. It started with peaceful protests, and escalated from their.

You want a nation to be free from dictatorship, this is how it happens: when the citizens of a nation decide they are willing to take matters into their own hands. Unlike Iraq, you don't have the leading military power pushed slightly aside, and a government propped up by foreign occupying armies. That's just leaves total reliance on foreign powers, or a completely ineffective government (likely to be overthrown once the invading forces are withdrawn).

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they 'won't get fooled again'.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

libya... the new iraq.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you honestly believe that tripe, I've got a bridge to sell you !

It will be interesting to see how the previously free healthcare, free education, free housing/utilities and subsidized products like motor vehicles are handled by the "new" regime.
Libya had ZERO international debt and a massive sovereign wealth fund, that owned things like 50% of the main bank in Bahrain.
With the cheapest oil production costs for the highest quality oil in the world, ordinary Libyans will probably be lucky to afford food for the next ten years.

While the US, France and the UK now fight over the wealth, the Islamic Brotherhood and the Benghazi Royal Family will no doubt fight over domestic control.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[elsurexiste]

Bold assertions. Care to show some sources?

By the way, Lybia had 6,378 million dollars of external debt... at the beginning of this year. Finally, the National Transitional Council is led by Mahmoud Jibril, who as far as I looked wasn't affiliated to those factions.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy

Doesn't look stable to me. Recall that the rebellion predated the foreign powers.

Where does the fact that Libya was a tyranny fit into your explanation?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[X.25]

Bold assertions. Care to show some sources?

Do you live in Libya? Or did you, at least, live in Libya for some time?

Or just you are another internet wikipedia detective?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[kbahey]

There is no guarantee.

But there is hope for change to the better, where there has been none at all for 42 years.

-- An Egyptian ...

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[timeOday]

In the beginning, Khadafi himself was a well-meaning rebel with real credibility. Same old story. The US really owes a great debt to George Washington, rarely do you find a powerful man who doesn't think he'd make a fine benevolent dictator.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the constitution the rebels posted online says their going with Sharia law.

Oh well.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Escalated from their what?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

It started with peaceful protests, and escalated from their.

It escalated from their what? Come on, don't leave us hanging like this!

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

External/International debt would not be something you need to be in Libya to learn about.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

It's worth noting that Germany and Japan both had democracies forcibly imposed on them and they worked. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to working along the same lines. Whether they ultimately stick around or transition to something else remains to be seen, but it's not a path with sure failure.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

previously free healthcare, free education, free housing/utilities and subsidized products like motor vehicles are handled by the "new" regime.

You sound just like a capitalist. They should be happy because we give them free stuff with only a few strings attached! All I can say is that the spontaneous revolt indicates to me that all wasn't well in Libya. Maybe those freebies weren't as generously distributed as you claim they were? Maybe Gaddifi was bad enough that bribes of free stuff weren't covering it? Maybe someone else is offering more in their local cargo cult?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. Both Japan and Germany had established democracies before the WWII. These fell as a result of economic hardships that happened when a certain country chose to export its financial collapse abroad in the late 1920s, but before that they were doing well, or not that bad. Both countries had managed to build nation states on home-grown bourgeois ideologies about their national identity and values. Democracy seemed to fit with those. Comparing Japan or Germany to any of the territories that emerged on the maps drawn by the retreating British Empire post WWII only shows your lack of anything resembling a historical perspective.

Iraq is nothing like either Japan, or Germany. Iraq was moving towards a secular nationalist and socialist state before Saddam was encouraged to attack his neighbors in the 70s and got the appetite for more. Now in place of Iraq you have a large Kurdish with gas, which is at low-intensity war with Turkey; a huge pro-Iranian area where all the oil is, and a well-armed, pro-Saddam smaller area in the central and Western part of the territory that was formerly Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, it was always a source of cash for the British military in the region, and a way for them to annoy Russia. The US overtook Britain, but little else has changed. NATO is there only because US can't afford to fight a war on its own.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

And by "cash" I mean opium cash. In the past it was opium for silver, silver for tea. Now, of course, the opium is not shipped to China, due to its government not totally cooperating, but there are other, doubly lucrative markets, where the opium derivatives are pushed, and where the dealers stand on both sides of the trade.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

UN HDI map is one interesting data source. See that huge green blob at the top of Africa, the only one on the continent? That's Libya. For all that can be said about Gaddafi, he really did make a working welfare state, head and shoulders above all his neighbors, and in many aspects on par even with some European countries.

As for spontaneous revolt, well... it may be true, but the fact that rebels - from the get go! - included high-profile people and organizations strongly affiliated with CIA - excuse me if I find it dubious.

Even if true, that grassroots movement seems to have just as strong radical Islamist component as the liberal one. If Iran is anything to go by, once the dictator is overthrown, the groups will inevitably start to fight between themselves - and Islamists are much more likely to win due to their determination and willingness to sacrifice.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

Not that I would be surprised (see sig), but... link?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

The new government will be IMF flanked by oil companies. For show, they'll setup the classical red/blue government with a flavour of sharia to cater to the freedom loving brave people of USA and their puppets.

Then it will all be great.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[maxwell demon]

The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy

Doesn't look stable to me. Recall that the rebellion predated the foreign powers.

Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion. Yes, it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people (except for those of their own country, as far as they need them to get re-elected)?

Where does the fact that Libya was a tyranny fit into your explanation?

Well, it already was a tyranny before that. Yet nobody in the west seemed to care too much as long as they got a net benefit.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

As The Who put it: Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss!

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion.

So in other words, not stable.

Well, it already was a tyranny before that. Yet nobody in the west seemed to care too much as long as they got a net benefit.

Guess they changed their mind. Seems to bother them now.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

In 1917 or so a russian king was deposed/abdicated and a republican (small r) government sorta was going but then was quickly executed (along with the king and his entire family) by the bolshi who were better organized which then ruled for a long time.

There's a bit more to it than that. The so-called Provisional Government that came to power after the abdication of Nicholas II was republican in name only - it was not elected by the people. Furthermore, while they had a stated goal of convening a Constituent Assembly (which would then determine the future political system of the country) - hence "provisional" in the name - in practice this kept getting postponed whenever the last promised date came up, so in effect it turned into a dictatorship. Bolshevik uprising in October was, in fact, done in the name of ensuring that Constituent Assembly is finally convened. Which, to Bolshevik's credit, they did fulfill - though they did promptly disband the Assembly after it turned out that they didn't have the majority there.

On the other hand, Provisional Government did not fully control the country. From February to October, there was a de facto dual government system, with Provisional Government on one hand, and workers and peasants councils ("Soviets" - these weren't Bolshevik only, but also SR and anarchists) on the other.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the opposition comes from the right direction(In a similar way that the American colonists' champions came from the classical liberal school of thought and so didn't quite pick up right where King George III left off), the desire of people to be rid of material problems like lack of food, work and safety won't be addressed when the power vacuum is filled. Any use of words like democracy will be empty covers for power mongers and those that bring them to power, whatever their intentions. Any near term improvements in conditions is more likely to be due to a lack of full control by the new regime, rather than an intentional relinquishing of power. Nascent and unstable new gangs have less legitimacy and control over peoples' minds, so must resort more to actual violence to keep rule. This isn't feasible for such new governments so usually it is the case that when less coercion is exerted, it is because they do not have the ability...yet.

You might be thinking 'now that is some serious cynicism' but I think I have a good understanding of the reasoning behind the nature of how individuals act, and how that builds up the ways in which societies operate. It doesn't hurt that I have confirmed these deductions with historical evidence of a fair number of revolutions. I have hardly a clue about the background of the recent middle eastern conflicts but I have studied them enough to know what is driving the vast majority of rioters turned rebels. It wasn't for something as abstract as democracy. They had food problems, as oversimplified a statement that is to say. I know full well it is more complicated than that, but my point still stands. These people haven't been immersed in the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, or even Hume and Mill. Even the crowds in the streets that bore signs in english advocating democracy rarely actually meant anything besides 'look at me western media, and support my particular military coup without determining its nature'.

I hope I am wrong, but my money is on a power struggle between those who want power, not those who want peace.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

Both Japan and Germany had established democracies before the WWII.

False in each case. The label "established" indicates stability and some degree of permanence which didn't happen.

But using your meaning, it's worth noting that Iraq had an "established democracy" from 1961-1963 and 1963-1968. Afghanistan has similar brushes with democracy in its past too. That makes them both just as qualified as Japan and Germany.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[he-sk]

Nobody forced democracy onto the Germans. If anything, the Soviets took it away from us in 1949. Germany's democratic desires can be traced back to when Napoleon invaded the Rhineland. That was 200 years ago.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Rei]

The UN HDI for Libya is biased by their very high GNI per capita (due to being one of the world's largest oil producers). But little of this actually makes it to the population (as noted by the CIA Factbook article on Libya).

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[antifoidulus]

And ever since Washington rarely have you found a president who knows its best not to stick your nose where it doesnt belong. Washington basically warned us about the current situation in the US over 200 years ago when he gave his farewell address. In it he basically warned against the formation of political parties and against the US getting involved in foreign wars...... basically warning us to stay away from the two things that are biting us in the ass right now.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but psychologically, the concept of a fair government made out of people is complete nonsense.
This doesn't mean anyone is "evil". Or "good".

See, people who become government usually have to fight very hard to get there. These are leader people from the depth of their heart. They know what they want exactly, and know that it's the right choice. So of course that's what they want to do.

But now that they are government, we expect them to be servants of the people. To do what we think is right.

Of course they won't. They aren't servants. They don't listen to others. They are leaders. They tell us what is good. That's their character. And we can't blame them. It's the absurdity of the system that's the problem.

The idea of having leaders serve. Of having other humans represent you. Humans with their own will, opinions and ideas. And by definition the strongest ones too.

This is why a democracy with people (or any life-form) in government can by definition never work. (Ok, unless you manage to put those in government that want it the least while being the best at it. Toooootally realistic... ;) )

So yes, it will only be a new dictator. And you can bet money the USrael, Russia, China, etc, will fight over it being their guy who the people get to "vote" for. ^^

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it was more of an independence movement that a real revolution. Those tend to go a lot better. Getting rid of the British didn't destroy all pre-exisitng political structures and disenfranchise all existing elites. Also they didn't have the tension of fighting hordes of their own people. They weren't eaten away from the paranoia that stems from that. Contrast this with the French Revolution.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you live in Libya? Or did you, at least, live in Libya for some time?

Do you think your average redneck has a clue how much the US's debt is? Does the typical shoulder-shrugging gitane-smoking 'bof'-saying Frenchman know the minutiae of the country's accounts?

What the fuck does living there have to do with anything?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[McGiraf]

The new dictator will deal with American and friends oil companies, the old one was dealing with Chinese and Russian oil companies. So yes thing will now be much "better" than before.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[mike2R]

Actually no. France, with NATO backing and U.S. participation will be in charge from here on out. The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy - and was doing too much business with China. That's been fixed now, thanks to an insurgent force recruited, funded, trained, armed and directed by a NATO coalition, operating under active air cover and full spectrum propaganda provided by the aforementioned foreign powers.

Typical rubbish. There are no foreign troops (in significent numbers) present in Libya, nor likely to be (the Libyans don;t want them, and no one wants to provide them).

Successful socialist economy? A population of a few million, and massive oil wealth, mean that it wasn't the poverty ridden hell hole it otherwise would have been, but compared to its potential... Anyway, Gadaffi left his socialist phase behind him a long time ago.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

But little of this actually makes it to the population (as noted by the CIA Factbook article on Libya).

CIA has been openly funding Libyan opposition since early 80s; it is hardly an impartial source. Meanwhile, people who have lived in the country, for the most part, beg to differ.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[mike2R]

Meanwhile, people who have lived in the country, for the most part, beg to differ.

Course they do, bloody obvious given the events of the last six months isn't it?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simpler: His interests and those of the people just seemed to line up. No need to dictate, when they want you to do what you want to do anyway. :)

Then again, even he didn't do everything the way people wanted it, no?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

Course they do, bloody obvious given the events of the last six months isn't it?

See, that's the funny part.

Back in Feb/March, all TV talking heads and newspapers were talking about the imminent collapse of Gaddafi's regime because it was supposed to be an uprising of all Libyan people. All he had left, they said, are a bunch of hired mercs. Well, and heavy artillery - but NATO air strikes were supposed to take care of that pronto.

And then what? Instead of a victorious march on the capital, we've seen six months of brutal fighting with towns shifting back and forth. Given NATO backing and its complete air superiority, this cannot be reasonably ascribed merely to loyalists' better equipment. The only meaningful explanation, then, is that a significant part of the population actually backed Gaddafi, and these provided the manpower for his forces to match that of the rebels.

Now, I'm no expert on Libyan sociopolitical arrangements, but one explanation I've seen that made sense to me was that Libyan society is generally tribal, and different tribes had different relationship with Gaddafi's power structure - which he reciprocated by funneling more state welfare towards those supportive of him. Those in the Cyrenaica region, in particular, have long been in opposition, and got less than their fair share of the oil revenues pie.

Either way, this doesn't look like a "people's revolution" to me, not anymore so than e.g. Russian revolution was. Those dying on the barricades under green flags are just as much citizens of Libya as those dying under the tricolor.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[The Master Control P]

When we look back in the year 3000 at what caused the stagnation, decline and eventual collapse of the United States, the year the progressive income tax was instituted will be clearly recognized as the year the US turned into a farce of itself. The fact that in the more than 100 years that followed it achieved some of the greatest scientific, technological and industrial breakthroughs ever, and for entire generations had a standard of living unprecedented in all of history, clearly can count for naught against the fact that there was a progressive income tax.

Nor will historians in New New York possibly identify the (well-meaning) decision of the Greatest Generation to shield their children from all the privation and pain they themselves endured, which has resulted in the current power-holders being a generation of self-centered pricks with no beliefs beyond "I got mine, fuck you", as planting the seed of the disaster we find ourselves in.

I don't mind paying taxes - they purchase civilization.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[mapkinase]

I know I shouldn't be so cynical but I have to ask who is the new president? It seems like every time I read about some party outvoting some government things really never get better.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your utter ignorance of economics, politics and history is rivaled only by the hardness of your convictions. You would have made an excellent party secretary in certain regimes.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

Ditto. Now do you have a real argument to make? I did and I made it. Way back when it was claimed that Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be democracies because the condition couldn't be forced on you. I gave Germany and Japan as counterexamples. Note that these contradict the original assertion!

Then possibly the same AC modifies that assertion to claim that Germany and Japan had "established democracies" while Iraq and Afghanistan did not. I showed that is also false and further note that Iraq and Afghanistan had brushes with democracy in their past!

Now, the poster gives up and whines that I'm ignorant because I failed to agree with him. Too bad.

What is remarkable here is that despite the similarity of the Iraq and Afghanistan regimes to modern democratic Germany and Japan we still have the writhing, like a worm on the hook. There are arguments against Iraq and Afghanistan being successful, but the current approach has failed.

Here's a few questions that should illuminate the problem:

1) I have asserted that democratic governments that Germany and Japan currently have are successful. Is this true?

2) Where these governments imposed by force after the Second World War?

If the answer to these two questions is "yes" (and it is), then we have a counterexample to the assertion that democracies cannot be imposed by an outside force and be successful.

But there's the assertion that these countries had prior experience with democracy, "established democracy" to be more precise, so let's consider that.

4) For each country what is the government?

5) What makes that government established? That is, what sort of evidence is there of the permanence and stability of the government (especially challenging given that the democracies in question didn't survive to the Second World War!).

I'll do the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq had a republic from 1961 to 1968 that was nominally a democracy. It eventually was overthrown by the Baathists. Meanwhile Afghanistan had a constitutional monarchy with limited elections from 1964 to 1973. I wouldn't consider these established democracies, but they do indicate that these countries have been exposed to democracy, which as I assert earlier is also the case with Germany and Japan.

To be blunt, I think the objections to my claims are vacuous and without cause. When pressed for substantiation of the claim, some poster, perhaps the same one as before, claims I'm ignorant, without providing even a little support for the claims that I have debated. So here's my challenge: put up or shut up. Either support your argument or stop wasting my time.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[jez9999]

What does "democracy" even mean these days, though? Most countries I see described as "democratic" afford very little power (if any) to the voter. It's really just describing one method of preventing civil wars while allowing the real overlords (the rich, the powerful, the elite) to continue to govern behind the scenes.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[eharvill]

While the US, France and the UK now fight over the wealth, the Islamic Brotherhood and the Benghazi Royal Family will no doubt fight over domestic control.

Like all the money coming into those countries from Iraq right now, right?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[mike2R]

While I agree that Gadaffi must certainly have had a significant degree of support, and also that the various armed groups of rebels are currently fragmented along tribal and ethnic lines, I think that this view can be pushed to far.

To see this as simply an East vs West civil war is to ignore the very definite large-scale support the rebels have received in and around Tripoli. The TNC in Benghazi have been adamant that they fight for the freedom of all Libyans, not for secession or to settle old scores - and while the fact that they need to say it indicates there are fault lines there, there has been nothing really credible to say that they are a) not sincere or b) being rejected on these grounds.

Tribes obviously play a part, especially in rural areas, but Libya is plainly not simply a tribal society - intermarriage is common in the big cities, and this is where the initial uprisings happened. There is a nation of Libya, on top of the other regional, ethnic and tribal identities. This was what initially took to the streets against Gadaffi at the beginning - it wasn't dispossessed tribes, or rebellious Easterners, it was the young people of Libya inspired by events in neighbouring countries.

Building a new society in Libya is a massive challenge, and there are huge potential problems, but I doubt it is as impossible a task as some think. The basic building blocks are there, and the desire from a large segment of the population. Massive oil wealth isn't a bad thing either, since the new government will actually be able to satisfy some of the key economic demands, unlike in say Egypt or Tunisia.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Rei]

Do you not know what the CIA World Factbook is? It's basically an encyclopedia (and is frequently cited in research papers). And it's not exactly some sort of a secret that Libya's wealth doesn't trickle down. The minimum wage in Libya is about $120 a month.. Law #15 maintains the average salary at about $200 a month. Yet the per-capita GNP works out to about $1200 a month. So, well, you do the math as to where most of the money is going.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Rei]

Wait... because a bunch of schoolteachers and engineers with scavenged weapons can't hold ground against a trained militia, therefore people love Gadhaffi? Run that by me again?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Hognoxious]

The only meaningful explanation, then, is that a significant part of the population actually backed Gaddafi

Or that a small number did, but they were much better trained and organized. Which would be the case if they were experienced professional soldiers facing people who a few months back were bricklayers or bakers.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Hognoxious]

As for spontaneous revolt, well... it may be true, but the fact that rebels - from the get go! - included high-profile people and organizations strongly affiliated with CIA - excuse me if I find it dubious.

That doesn't prove the CIA (or their zionist alien overlizards) were running the show.

If you were an intelligence agency A belonging to a country C that sees country E as an actual or potential enemy then you'd be doing it wrong if you didn't have contacts with dissident organizations like D.

For example, A=KGB, C=USSR, E=UK, D=CND. Or A=CIA, C=USA, E=Mussolini's Italy, D=The Mafia.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Hognoxious]

If anything, the Soviets took it away from us in 1949.

How?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Reservoir Penguin]

You're right, people from all over sub Saharan Africa and even neighboring North African countries came to Libya looking for work. I studied many various sources and not just corrupt Western media that is 100% behind rebel scum. Now you have my support Gaddafi, people of Libya support you and I believe you will come out of this victorious.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Tsingi]

Either way, this doesn't look like a "people's revolution" to me, not anymore so than e.g. Russian revolution was. Those dying on the barricades under green flags are just as much citizens of Libya as those dying under the tricolor.

You could very well be right. That had not occurred to me. We do know that Gaddafi wasn't being a good boy and doing what he was told. This could all very well be a staged overthrow to put in someone who will behave.

We'll find out eventually. After no one cares any more.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Tsingi]

Wait... because a bunch of schoolteachers and engineers with scavenged weapons can't hold ground against a trained militia, therefore people love Gadhaffi? Run that by me again?

That's a straw man argument, he didn't say the people loved Gadhaffi. He suggested that the people might not have instigated the revolt. They may have been perfectly happy to go along with it. Not the point.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Tsingi]

Do you not know what the CIA World Factbook is? It's basically an encyclopedia (and is frequently cited in research papers). And it's not exactly some sort of a secret that Libya's wealth doesn't trickle down. The minimum wage in Libya is about $120 a month.. Law #15 maintains the average salary at about $200 a month. Yet the per-capita GNP works out to about $1200 a month. So, well, you do the math as to where most of the money is going.

FYI: "The top economic 1 percent of the US population now has a record 40 pecent of all wealth, and have more wealth than 90 percent of the population combined." http://www.alternet.org/story/151999/meet_the_global_financial_elites_controlling_%2446_trillion_in_wealth/

There you go, the math is all done for you. (and why does my spell checker insist that "math" is not a word?" LOL!)

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Tsingi]

Your utter ignorance of economics, politics and history is rivaled only by the hardness of your convictions. You would have made an excellent party secretary in certain regimes.

And you make an excellent coward. Sign your posts dipshit.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Tsingi]

What does "democracy" even mean these days, though? Most countries I see described as "democratic" afford very little power (if any) to the voter. It's really just describing one method of preventing civil wars while allowing the real overlords (the rich, the powerful, the elite) to continue to govern behind the scenes.

100% correct, and it is up to us to take back the helm while we still have some shred of democracy left.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[BCGlorfindel]

Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion.

You realize that Gaddafi's own representatives at the UN agreed with you? They were well agreed that Gaddafi was hours away from initiating his genocide of the opposition. It was then, at the urging of the Arab League that the UN requested the assistance of member nations, and NATO volunteered to protect the Libyan civilians.

You are quite correct to observe that without NATO's stepping in, Gaddafi would have quickly stabilized his control of Libya.

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[maxwell demon]

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

Reading comprehension: Epic fail.

Here's what I wrote (emphasis added): "Yes, it would not have been good for the people"

What do you think the word I've now emphasized means?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck my anonymous dick, namefag. What's your address?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[BCGlorfindel]

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

Reading comprehension: Epic fail.

Here's what I wrote (emphasis added): "Yes, it would not have been good for the people"

What do you think the word I've now emphasized means?

Nice try, but your not back pedaling fast enough. Here is the context you responded to, and I called you out on:

The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy

Doesn't look stable to me. Recall that the rebellion predated the foreign powers.

MaxWell Demon:Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion. Yes, it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people". What's more, you do it in the context of a discussion were stability is advocated as the one benefit for Libyan people of remaining under Gaddafi versus an unknown future with the NATO backed opposition.

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[BCGlorfindel]

In the beginning, Khadafi himself was a well-meaning rebel with real credibility. Same old story. The US really owes a great debt to George Washington, rarely do you find a powerful man who doesn't think he'd make a fine benevolent dictator.

An honest question. During Gaddafi's revolution, were all his supporters rallying in the streets demanding the basic freedom of democratic process? That would seem a very important distinction or commonality.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[maxwell demon]

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people".

Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep the 4chan childishness on 4chan, please.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[BCGlorfindel]

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people".

Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.

You declare that governments are all bad, and thus that genocide really is nothing new. As though there are no degrees of bad that a government can fall under. Gaddafi was going to commit a widespread genocide against his opposition. Your defense for not stopping it amounts to observing that America's congress doesn't care about the American people either, so they are just as bad and no sense trading one bad government for another.

You downplay genocide because you want to take pot shots at NATO and the west to point out that yes, they are bad and have done evil things too.

Put on our big boy pants and face the real world. Every nation the world over has done horrible, terrible things to masses of people. America is not special in that regard. In order to try and make live better for people, sometimes that means working against a common enemy, like the rebels are working with NATO to remove Gaddafi. Removing Gaddafi doesn't guarantee a golden age for Libyan people. It just aborts the guaranteed retaliatory genocide Gaddafi would have enacted without his defeat, and a slim hope for a better future that was impossible without Gaddafi's removal. That is a good thing, however bleak the circumstances may be.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[he-sk]

By completely preventing any cooperation between the Soviet and the three Western occupied territories. By blocking any meaningful development of political parties except their pet communist SED. By trying to grab the entirety of Berlin which precipitated the building of the Berlin Wall 12 years later.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

It's worth noting that in a properly functioning democracy with a lot of voters, that a voter would have very little power as intended. You're not going to get an administration to run just because you're a voter. Also why should a voter get preference over a voter who employs other voters? I think a lot of this complaining is just disrespect for the people who help make society go.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Rei]

No, *that's* not what he said. I'll quote:

And then what? Instead of a victorious march on the capital, we've seen six months of brutal fighting with towns shifting back and forth. Given NATO backing and its complete air superiority, this cannot be reasonably ascribed merely to loyalists' better equipment. The only meaningful explanation, then, is that a significant part of the population actually backed Gaddafi, and these provided the manpower for his forces to match that of the rebels.

So I'll repeat:

Wait... because a bunch of schoolteachers and engineers with scavenged weapons can't hold ground against a trained militia, therefore people love Gadhaffi? Run that by me again?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Rei]

Your red herring aside, can you really not understand why people living on $200 a month would be upset with a murderous strongman stealing 80% of their country's wealth to live in absurd showy luxury and rebel the first time they get the chance?

But really, back to your red herring -- can you not tell the difference between a successful businessman and a dictator who controls every aspect of a country's life by military force?

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Tsingi]

can you not tell the difference between a successful businessman and a dictator who controls every aspect of a country's life by military force?

LOL! That's a trick question.

Not in these interesting times.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Chris Burke]

Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?

Thinking in binary much?

Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.

No, no it isn't. Great evils have been done by people who sincerely intended to do good. It begins when you believe that because your intent is good, you cannot do evil.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

I didn't say that all people love Gaddafi. Clearly that is wrong, otherwise the rebels would have been crushed a long time ago.

But, where does the Gaddafi's militia come from, and how does it replenish its losses?

You also say "schoolteachers and engineers"... what about all the underground fighting groups which have existed for decades (and carried out military operations long before the uprising)? What about mujahideen from neighboring countries, some with recent combat experience?

Finally, what about the heavy NATO backing? Uncontested air superiority is a major balance shifter, often enough alone to win the war - just ask Egyptians about 1967....

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[shutdown -p now]

Or that a small number did, but they were much better trained and organized. Which would be the case if they were experienced professional soldiers

Libya, supposedly, had a regular army. And back in March the newspapers were all claiming mass desertions of army units to the rebels and whatnot. Sounds like professionals to me.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Hognoxious]

Those sound like things to prevent reunification, not undo democracy.

And I'm not quite sure why 12 years later = 1949.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[he-sk]

I didn't say that they undid a democracy, after all Germany was under military occupation after being a fascist dictatorship. But there were democratically minded people there. In the Soviet occupation zone these sentiments were crushed and a Stalinist dictatorship was installed. Hence the Soviets "took away" democracy from the people in the East.

The Berlin wall was built in August 1961 (60 years and a few days ago). That was 12 years after the end of the Berlin blockade and the definite beginning of the German split in May/October 1949.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[aliquis]

Norway recently found more oil. And they have lets of ground in the arctic regions.

Also how convenient: One guy blows up Oslo and goes on an island killing spree killing 77!

Clearly a nation filled with terrorist which they need to be liberated from.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your questions prove how stupid you are, but I'll feed you.

1. No, that's not what you claim, read your original post. You claim "forcing democracy" to Japan and Germany was "successful". You were shown that nobody "forced" democracy on Japan and Germany. Subsequent success or lack of it was not discussed at all. Keep up with the discussion, pal.
2. No, the governments were not "imposed by force". Just the opposite, the governments were largely freely elected and were, outside of foreign policy and military affairs, free do do as they wanted. Whatever institutions appeared were built by the Germans and the Japanese themselves, based mostly on their pre-war institutions. What happened "by force" was the removal of the military regimes that suspended the democracies.

4 & 5. You claim Afghanistan and Iraq were "exposed to democracy" in the same way Japanese and Germans were "exposed to democracy" in the beginning of the 20th century. This is simply ridiculous. There were no nation states in the newly "liberated" colonies post WWII. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not over the Arab peninsula, not in most of Africa. There were colonial administrations, built to plunder natural resources and keep the populace "peaceful" by force. These administrations ruled over tribal societies. When the territories gained "independence", a military regime of local thugs was plugged onto the colonial administration, usually with a little help from the former colonial power. Some of these regimes called themselves "democracies", that much is true. Were they democratic? Were they an outcome of a transformation within the society? Did the ideology of democracy establish itself as an accepted model of governance among large parts of the population, as was the case in Japan and Germany pre-war? Nah, not really. Not even close.

If you cannot tell the difference between a nation state, built on the foundation of a body of citizens sharing the same set of values, where democratic government emerged as the outcome of complicated internal social development that lasted an odd century or five, and a territory populated with warring tribes, whose chieftains use the word "democratic" just like their fathers used leopard skins and feathers for decoration, you're beyond help.

To sum up: since the political and economic reality of post-war Japan and Germany differ vastly from the tribal societies of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. it is quite doubtful that a democratic society will emerge in the latter, even with a little help from a sophomoric "nation builder" like the US. The US policy that professed that is possible was stupid (and possibly a lie from the get-go), and its failure -- both during the Bremer years and during the Petreus years -- is not an accident. NATO's policies in Libya and elsewhere, in their part of "transforming" those societies are also doomed to fail. But I doubt that is of concern to anybody involved -- the concern is control over natural resources -- oil, opium, whatever.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[siddesu]

If a very smart guy gets you involved, involvement is much better than isolationism. Consider the case of one Franklin Roosevelt, and his masterful steering of world politics into and out of WWII, which moved the US from a backwater to a superpower, and ruined or bankrupted several colonial empires in the process. The plunder and the influence gained in the 30s and the 40s lasted for nearly 40 years.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[AP31R0N]

Your tinfoil hat needs another layer.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[khallow]

1. No, that's not what you claim, read your original post. You claim "forcing democracy" to Japan and Germany was "successful". You were shown that nobody "forced" democracy on Japan and Germany. Subsequent success or lack of it was not discussed at all. Keep up with the discussion, pal.

Read what I wrote. I quote it more than once and you still claim I wrote something else.

2. No, the governments were not "imposed by force". Just the opposite, the governments were largely freely elected and were, outside of foreign policy and military affairs, free do do as they wanted. Whatever institutions appeared were built by the Germans and the Japanese themselves, based mostly on their pre-war institutions. What happened "by force" was the removal of the military regimes that suspended the democracies.

Bullshit. Look up the term, "denazification". This is an example of the force that you claim wasn't used.

All I can gather here is that you have a belief about how the world should be run and you are distorting the past to fit that belief. Policies that you think should fail (I would hazard because they are implemented by powers you don't like), you claim are failing. That's not valid criteria.

Re:Who is the new dictator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what I wrote

Here it is, for you:

It's worth noting that Germany and Japan both had democracies forcibly imposed on them

And it is just as wrong as it was the first time you wrote it, dimwit. The military regimes were removed, subsequent governments were, on removal of occupational forces, elected and ran democratically. So much so, that both Germany and Japan kept practically all key political institutions they had pre-war.

Look up the term, "denazification"

You are really, really ignorant. You should read up on "denazification" instead of throwing it around, because it further undermines your argument that democracy was forced on Germany or Japan. First, because nothing like it took place in Japan, where MacArthur chose to let things run their natural course, and used the very same officers and ministers in his occupational administration that he fought only a few years earlier. Second, in Europe it was followed through and done with any fervor only in the Soviet zone, where the NKVD was busy establishing a totalitarian regime, not a democracy. Third, where it happened in the West it misfired so badly that even the Americans largely cut and ran by 1949, and when the policy was officially scrapped by, I think, Adenauer in 1950 or thereabouts nobody made a peep, not even that noisy fatso Churchill. Well, he was busy with Soviet-bashing on the US lecture circuit by then, anyway.

All I can gather here is that you have a belief about how the world should be run and you are distorting the past to fit that belief.

And all I can gather here is that you're so totally ignorant of the history and social realities of Europe, Asia and the Middle East that you're unable to understand and follow the argument that's being made. But your energy more than makes up for your lack of knowledge.

Here's a good Russian joke for you. A Chukchi (an inhabitant of Chukotka, a remote and supposedly backward territory in the Russian Far East) hears about all these writers and books and decides to write one himself. So, he sits down, writes a manuscript, and sends it to the editor. After a while there's no positive response, so the Chukchi skies to Vladivostok, hops on the train to Moscow and eventually gets to see the chief editor. The editor looks at the guy, looks at the manuscript, sighs and says "you know, mister, you should really read the great Russian masters, Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Gogol and learn from them". To which the Chukchi replies: "Me no reader, me writer".

I am curious what the residents think

[wierd_w]

Not about the retun of internet services, but about the entire affair of their dictator and the uprising against him.

Up until now our reports are essentially the press releases of the rebel faction and quadaffi's, respectively.

Unrestricted internet access would grant a wealth of on the street reports on civilian sentiment about these events.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter if the 'general population' supports the uprising?

Even if 80% of the population were supporters of the Gaddafi regime, that there is a part of the population with no political or economic freedom and influence would in itself be a justification for changing the system. It does not matter if it is a majority or a minority representing the tyranny, it is still tyranny.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Sycraft-fu]

My guess would be they are glad to see Ghadaffi go, but nervous. The guy is an unmitigated asshole who has ruled with an iron fist and severely curtailed personal liberty, executed political dissidents, and taken most of the country's wealth for him and his family. You can bet he's not real popular, and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone.

However I'm sure they are also worried. I mean who knows what kind of government the rebels bring? Maybe things become free and open, maybe they turn out to be even worse. Also war is always worrying because innocents get hurt, no way around it. You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can definitely mark you down as one of the members of the "no democracy, please" camp, then.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[twocows]

Really? Because I've been following the coverage on NPR, BBC, and Al Jazeera since about the time it started.

The reactions are mixed, though it seems like there are a lot more people who disliked Quadaffi. Back before Triploi was taken, a reporter who snuck away from his chaperone managed to get an interview with someone who basically said "when the rebels come, they'll all have our support." And a lot of that happened. However, there were a few pockets of die-hard Quadaffi supporters who still resisted.

I think the coverage was pretty good. Al Jazeera especially did a great job (I subscribe to their RSS feed) and BBC had a lot of great coverage as well.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[X.25]

My guess would be they are glad to see Ghadaffi go, but nervous. The guy is an unmitigated asshole who has ruled with an iron fist and severely curtailed personal liberty, executed political dissidents, and taken most of the country's wealth for him and his family. You can bet he's not real popular, and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone.

Well, I guess 'consumers' in Libya will soon find out how it looks like when you have to start paying bills for everything, and when 'democratic' government is not giving out subsidies anymore (but money goes to themselves and their cronies).

Mind you, I really don't like Ghadaffi, but Libya is now going to end up like Iraq.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[khallow]

Depends what you think democracy means. I live in a constitutional republic (the US) which isn't always considered a democracy depending on the definer. Tyranny by a majority was one of the supposed evils that the elaborate and segregated structure of the government was supposed to guard against.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[khallow]

but Libya is now going to end up like Iraq.

Which would be terrible if Iraq were doing badly.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[CodeBuster]

You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.

At the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps in Bonn, West Germany on June 24 1963, John F Kennedy referenced Dante's Inferno when he remarked that, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in periods of moral crisis, maintained their neutrality." The people of Libya and especially the youth, who with neither training nor experience and at great personal risk, took up arms to liberate themselves from decades of brutal oppression deserve the highest praise for their actions. Although, revolution is and always should be a last resort, it's refreshing to see that there are still some people left who are willing to stake everything they have, including their lives, for a real chance at freedom and a brighter future for themselves and their children. That was the same sort of spirit that got America started 235 years ago and we could all stand to be reminded of that by the courageous example of the Libyan people. I salute them.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole thing is a farce. "Rebels"? They're jihadists. Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces readily kill civilians, they yell "allah hu ackbar!" when firing their weapons. Terrorists all around, including NATO. We should GTFO at once, Obama got us into another mess we shouldn't be involved in.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[tqk]

Well, I guess 'consumers' in Libya will soon find out how it looks like when you have to start paying bills for everything, and when 'democratic' government is not giving out subsidies anymore (but money goes to themselves and their cronies).

So, we can put you down as synic, yes?

Damnit man, they're restarting their country with intentions toward freedom, and that's all you can come up with?!?

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

Tyranny by a majority was one of the supposed evils that the elaborate and segregated structure of the government was supposed to guard against.

How is that working out? Because *cough*Tea Party*cough*, it looks like you can't even prevent tyranny of the minority.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[shutdown -p now]

What if the repressed 20% would prefer Sharia law as a constitution, complete with burqas and death penalty for adultery and apostasy - as seen in "liberated" Afghanistan? Isn't that just another kind of tyranny?

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[shutdown -p now]

The people of Libya and especially the youth, who with neither training nor experience and at great personal risk, took up arms to liberate themselves from decades of brutal oppression deserve the highest praise for their actions.

Yeah, especially those valiant freedom fighters serving under this guy.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Gadget_Guy]

Which would be terrible if Iraq were doing badly.

Yes, things are going very well.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[khallow]

Because *cough*Tea Party*cough*, it looks like you can't even prevent tyranny of the minority.

It has to be tyranny first. The Tea Party also has the virtue of being on the right side of the taxation argument.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

In what ways is Iraq doing well compared to the times it was run by Saddam?

Instead of one socialist state, which, while far from ideal, managed to provide livable conditions to most of its citizens, there are now three wild, impoverished areas with destroyed infrastructure and without social order, simmering in civil war.

Where it matters -- close to the oil -- the US puppet government is paying cash to the pro-Iranian and the ex-Saddam factions not to kill each other in excessively large numbers, so now you have one bombing with 50-60 dead bodies every two weeks instead of one bombing killing 15-20 every two days. Compared to pre-"mission accomplished", sanctions-crippled Iraq, that's still a hell. American-made hell.

Then you have the Kurds, left on their own, who now fight the Turkish regular army in the same way they were fighting Saddam's security forces during the times of the no-fly zone. The only difference for the security in the region is that what was once an unstable, but controlled situation in Iraq has become a full-blown border conflict.

The only thing that has changed in Iraq compared to the time when Bremer and his CIA runner Warlick were in charge in Baghdad is the media coverage, which has now almost gone, mostly because people in the West are just not interested in hearing about problems there anymore.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[CodeBuster]

Revolutions are messy and bloody affairs and they sometimes make for strange bedfellows. In the case of Libya there wasn't any other viable option; four decades of Gaddafi proved that. Are some of these revolutionaries unsavory? Almost certainly, but that doesn't diminish their success. Libya is not the same as Iraq, the people in charge aren't about to hand the reigns of power to the Taliban-style Islamists; especially not after four decades of Gaddafi and his "Islamic Jamahiriya" nonsense.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[shutdown -p now]

Gaddafi's state, for all his Islamic rhetoric in the "Green Book" and elsewhere, was more secular than it was Islamic. Meanwhile, NATO is giving weapons to the very same people who have been fighting them a mere year ago in Afghanistan under the banner of religious fanaticism. And one simple rule of all revolutions is: whoever got the guns, is in charge. Would you bet on it that liberal opposition will end up with more guns than Islamists? and even if so, that they will be ready and willing to use them? Don't be quick to forget about the fate of NDF and MPRP in Iran.

In the case of Libya there wasn't any other viable option; four decades of Gaddafi proved that.

I see you're a pessimist: "it can't get any worse." I prefer to be an optimist: "sure it can, and will".

The sad thing in all of this is that, ten or twenty years down the line, Western countries will likely have troops on the ground in Libya, fighting "terrorist insurgents" armed with those same weapons we gave them against Gaddafi (case in point: Afghanistan). Round and round it goes...

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[mike2R]

The whole thing is a farce. "Rebels"? They're jihadists. Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces readily kill civilians, they yell "allah hu ackbar!" when firing their weapons. Terrorists all around, including NATO. We should GTFO at once, Obama got us into another mess we shouldn't be involved in.

They are terrorists because they shout "God is Great" (one of the cries of the revolution across the Arab world, and even used by those protesting against the Mullahs in Iran)?

I'd hate to see your reaction if you heard some of my countrymen singing are national anthem, God Save the Queen.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[khallow]

Instead of one socialist state, which, while far from ideal, managed to provide livable conditions to most of its citizens, there are now three wild, impoverished areas with destroyed infrastructure and without social order, simmering in civil war.

Interesting perception there. But if there's a so-called "civil war" shouldn't there be a war first? Instead we see that the war, such as it was, ended in 2008.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[khallow]

So there was a day with an relatively large number of attacks. That's the point of making attacks like that, to get in the paper and provide a little propaganda to people who want to believe. I'm asking here for evidence that things aren't going well in Iraq. One day doesn't cut it.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Xest]

"and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone."

What I found quite telling was to see the pro-Gaddaffi rallies, they weren't particularly numerous, and those that were there often seem to be very well dressed, with an impressive amount of expensive looking jewellery on.

I have a feeling the only ones supporting Gaddaffi pretty much are the ones who, like him, are rich through exploiting the people and the country. Those who Gaddaffi has allowed to similarly exploit these resources seem to be, for the most part, the only ones backing him.

Even his military seems comprised primarily of mercenairies now.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[mean pun]

The Tea Party also has the virtue of being on the right side of the taxation argument.

The far, far, far right side, I would say. Personally, I don't consider that a virtue, but then I'm not an American, only a bemused spectator.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

freedom ? it will never stop amazing me how are us-ians obsessed with the word freedom. as if it were some magic cure for every problem leading straight to nirvana. tell me, what for it is your freedom to you if you dont have water ?

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[delinear]

What's the minimum requirement here? Is it the 20% you hypothesize or would it be the same if it was only 10%, or 1%, or a handful of people? At some point you have to weight the good of the majority against protecting the minority and make a call.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Tsingi]

Because *cough*Tea Party*cough*, it looks like you can't even prevent tyranny of the minority.

It has to be tyranny first. The Tea Party also has the virtue of being on the right side of the taxation argument.

Yes, tax the poor and give it to the rich. I take it you're either one of the rich, or one of the poor that buys into the propaganda that giving all the money to the rich will help you out. LOL!

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Tsingi]

but Libya is now going to end up like Iraq.

Which would be terrible if Iraq were doing badly.

What planet are you from?

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Tsingi]

Instead of one socialist state, which, while far from ideal, managed to provide livable conditions to most of its citizens, there are now three wild, impoverished areas with destroyed infrastructure and without social order, simmering in civil war.

Interesting perception there. But if there's a so-called "civil war" shouldn't there be a war first? Instead we see that the war, such as it was, ended in 2008.

Interesting point, it wasn't really a war, it was a totally illegal and unwarranted invasion by a terrorist super power bent on controlling the region for it's resources.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[CrimsonAvenger]

Are some of these revolutionaries unsavory? Almost certainly, but that doesn't diminish their success.

What diminishes their success was the need for NATO to provide the airstrikes that made that success possible.

Winning a civil war may be a success, having someone else win it for you, not so much....

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

As a taxpayer in one of the countries involved in this conflict I'm mostly curious about what kind of government I will have helped install.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[khallow]

but then I'm not an American, only a bemused spectator.

Maybe you should be informed instead of bemused. Let's work on that a little. The very name, "Tea Party" harkens back to an incident in 1773 where protestors dumped a bunch of East India tea which had been taxed by the British government into the Boston harbor. And that describes a fundamental property of the modern Tea Party. It is not a bunch of social conservatives protesting evolution or whatever. It is first and foremost a tax protest.

There are three basic and closely related beliefs shared by most people who consider themselves Tea Partiers. First, that the US government spends too much and on things which are not good priorities for a country with serious budget troubles. Second, that it taxes too much. Third, that the federal government has too much power.

Past that, it's an amorphous blob of beliefs though generally of some variation of conservative bent.

There are obvious villains to dislike. Obama may be good to his people (and there's about 30-35% of the US voting population who really likes him), but he is strongly disliked by Tea Partiers for several reasons. A key one is simply that he has shown for several years a strong disinterest in fiscal conservatism. He spent almost a year passing health care reform and only got on the budget reform bus after his party lost badly in the midterm elections in November 2010.

He's also an arrogant ass and probably likes playing the part. The whole birtherism thing came about because he refused for years to release birth certificate records. He still has yet to release his academic records. This is stuff I use to figure out what a presidential candidate is and does. It's all so damn retarded for a grown up to do.

We have the emergency, three years of 10% of GDP deficits. That's ridiculous overspending. Sure, Bush set Obama up the bomb in the 2008-2009 fiscal year (though it's worth noting that Obama could have stopped about $400 billion of the TARP bailout from being deployed and cut that year's deficit significantly), but the other two years are pure Obama. We have large spending bouts that purport to be Keynesian stimulus but fail the basic tests of Keynesian spending, they are neither near future spending nor infrastructure building (that is, they aren't investments). They do pass the kronyism test with labor unions and some other democrat constituents doing well.

The "it's worse than we feared" excuse doesn't seem to get a lot of traction when talking about these things.

We have quantitative easing, a massive secretive purchase of several trillion dollars of bonds and debt with no accountability and no assurance that these bonds are reliable (sure, some are US treasuries which should be highly reliable, but some could be junk quality stuff dumped by the banks for all we know, there's been times when the Fed has been the buyer of bonds).

And finally, we have a general and substantial hostility throughout the Obama administration towards employing people in the US with business owners both taking the blame for not creating jobs while simultaneously faced with higher costs and various landmines (such as paying extended health insurance benefits for laid off employees).

So yea, we have a movement with focus, a stirring emergency in the large deficits, and a great villain verging on cartoonish self-caricature. Hence, a movement was formed within two years of Obama getting elected. Does it consist of humans with all their typical foibles. Yep, sure does. Will it survive the coming election cycle and make good on some of those goals? I hope so, but these movements have a bad track record.

It's interesting to note how many attacks on the Tea Party are without substance. It's not just another conservative movement or a bunch of crazies. It's not astroturf from the Koch brothers or some chameleon movement that is what you want it to be. It's not a bunch of racists (I bet Obama p

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been full coverage in Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/) from the start, including on-the-spot reporters and links to local lybian blogs.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

And my guess is the new "Ghadaffi", will be more US-friendly.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Chris Burke]

The American Revolution could never have succeeded without the support of France's navy. This is historical fact, and yet I don't believe it actually diminishes the success of the Revolutionary Army one bit. Even with France's support, we were the underdogs in that fight.

Similarly, the fact that the Libyan rebels would have been summarily crushed if Qaddafi had been able to deploy his armor and air force with impunity doesn't diminish their accomplishments against a better equipped and better trained opponent. As we all know, bombing can only take one so far and once Qaddafi pulled his artillery back into the cities, NATO's power could no longer be decisive.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess would be they are glad to see Ghadaffi go, but nervous. The guy is an unmitigated asshole who has ruled with an iron fist and severely curtailed personal liberty, executed political dissidents, and taken most of the country's wealth for him and his family. You can bet he's not real popular, and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone.

However I'm sure they are also worried. I mean who knows what kind of government the rebels bring? Maybe things become free and open, maybe they turn out to be even worse. Also war is always worrying because innocents get hurt, no way around it. You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.

I'm a Libyan.

You seem to think the "rebels" are separate from the people; they're not. We are one and the same.

Those fighting in Tripoli right now are its inhabitants of all age groups. Everyone helps in what ever way they can.

The fact this went from protests in every city, no matter how much the media wishes to ignore that fact in their lust for "tribal warfare", does not mean it was hijacked.

The US cares for the oil, we know that. But here's the thing, the US would have preferred none of this happened-- that not a peep of conflict (protests included) happened. So those yammering on this being a 'NATO coup" are clueless.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a "perception", you stupid American coach potato. I have been there, both before Bush Sr. let Saddam know it is okay to attack Kuwait and after Bush Jr. accomplished the mission. It was a moderately pleasant place before. Now it is a living hell.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[CodeBuster]

Did we actually supply them with many weapons? It would seem that most of the rebel armaments consist of ex-Soviet and Russian equipment captured from stockpiles built up by Gadaffi in the decades following the US airstrikes of 1986. Indeed, the Libyan rebels shown on CNN appear to be using AK-47s, RPGs, DShKs, ZU-23-2s (mounted on pickup trucks to create "Technicals"), and a few ZSU-23s and T-54/55/72 tanks; not exactly standard NATO equipment. It seems that NATO contributions were mostly in the areas of airstrikes against Gadaffi's heavy weapons and command/control networks, tactical advice and strategic intelligence to support the rebel advances. NATO helped make the rebel advances possible, giving them a fighting chance, but it was the rebels themselves who took the opportunity and seized it using locally sourced and captured weapons.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[CodeBuster]

What diminishes their success was the need for NATO to provide the airstrikes that made that success possible.

The NATO airstrikes made success possible, but by no means did it guarantee it. The rebels still had to follow through with the ground fighting. If this means the end of Gadaffi, then it was well worth the investment for NATO; especially considering all of the trouble that Gadaffi has caused Europe over the decades. Good riddance.

Winning a civil war may be a success, having someone else win it for you, not so much.

The NATO airstrikes evened the odds for the rebels, eliminating Gadaffi's air force and much of his heavy weapons, but the rebels still had to fight Gadaffi's forces who, in spite of the NATO airstrikes, were still somewhat better armed and trained than the rebels; some of whom had never handled small arms before this fight began. I still maintain that the rebels deserve credit for going up against a better armed and trained force and even with NATO's help they still took serious risks that shouldn't be minimized.

Re:I am curious what the residents think

[CodeBuster]

Similarly, the fact that the Libyan rebels would have been summarily crushed if Qaddafi had been able to deploy his armor and air force with impunity doesn't diminish their accomplishments against a better equipped and better trained opponent.

Amen.

Missing the point

[wanzeo]

I think rebel forces finally taking the capital qualifies as "...stuff that matters". Do we really need to search for a tech angle just to talk about it on Slashdot?

As for the rebels, I have been impressed with how they have persisted despite awful organization and very weak help from the West. I am happy to see them finally prevail.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

and very weak help from the West

Yes, "very weak" indeed. Pounding the ridiculous army of Gaddafi from the air with everything Nato's got in the Mediterranean (hell, even the Bulgarian navy sent ships there), dropping ammo and having "advisers" on the ground ... Gaddafi couldn't have it had easier, really.

Re:Missing the point

[phantomfive]

Do we really need to search for a tech angle just to talk about it on Slashdot?

It's pretty common for Slashdot to highlight the tech angle of world stories, because they are interesting things that get lost in other reports. It gives us a chance to talk about Libya, and see a different side of the situation. Ousama Abushagur is now a hero, at least to fellow geeks.

Re:Missing the point

[gman003]

Exactly. If we want some armchair general's view on the battle, or a politicians view, we check CNN or BBC or even Wikinews. If we want a comedian's view, we watch Colbert. If we want a moron's view, there's Fox. If we want the tech angle, we've got /. They all start from the same core story, but each specializes in a particular set of details.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Bombing of Libyan military forces, sending hires satellite imagery exposing Libyan troop positions to NATO special forces units on the ground who were directing offensive operations for the "rebels", multiple failed attempts at direct assassination of Kadafy, etc. etc. "Very weak" indeed!

Re:Missing the point

[khallow]

Gaddafi is still alive. If I were doing the bombing, he'd be among the first dead. So yes, he does have it easy.

Re:Missing the point

[X.25]

As for the rebels, I have been impressed with how they have persisted despite awful organization and very weak help from the West. I am happy to see them finally prevail.

Ahahahahaha. Very "weak help from the west"?

Holy crap, that universe of yours is amusing...

Re:Missing the point

[adamofgreyskull]

HAH! You FOOL! You can get all of those angles from FOX!

Palin/Bachman 2012

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then, Internet Tough Guy, maybe you should get a job in your military, because Gaddafi isn't alive for lack of trying on the behalf of the US.

Re:Missing the point

[tqk]

I think rebel forces finally taking the capital qualifies as "...stuff that matters". Do we really need to search for a tech angle just to talk about it on Slashdot?

Yes. Libyan freedom is a good thing. /. is about tech. What's wrong with discussing the intersection of the two? If it's not relevant to both spheres, we waste others' time or abuse their patience.

It's not like we're ignoring the "African Spring" by focussing on its tech. corollaries.

Syria next! Woohoo! :-)

Re:Missing the point

[khallow]

Looks who's talking AC. Me? I'm not tough, I just know something about how to fight. And to correct a mistake on your part, aside from time back in the 80s when the US dropped some ordnance on Gaddafi's tent, there's never been an attempt (at least with US military forces), serious or otherwise to kill Gaddafi.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you obviously know a lot about fighting Pringles cans from behind the Xbox. I'm sure they give you harder times than Gaddafi to NATO. That kind of experience surely makes you indispensable ... Too bad the US Chiefs of Staff haven't figured out what an asset you are.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one angle on Fox - Rupert Murdoch's opinion.

Re:Missing the point

[khallow]

There's a simple observation to make here. The US Chiefs of Staff don't make those sorts of decisions. President Obama does. Telling them what to do isn't relevant when Obama has decided otherwise. Do I think Obama is ineffectively fighting in Libya? Of course.

Re:Missing the point

[mapkinase]

Do we really need to search for a tech angle just to talk about it on Slashdot

Yes.

Re:Missing the point

[Tsingi]

First of all, Obama probably does what he is told, second of all, don't argue with the AC's (guilty) it only encourages them.

Re:Missing the point

[Tsingi]

Actually, you should just watch Colbert. Funny guy.

Re:Missing the point

[cOldhandle]

I'd imagine that the "help" has been greatly downplayed/not reported on, to emphasize the narrative of the Libyan people overthrowing their terrible dictator by themselves. In the next few weeks/months we might find out the extent of UK/French bombing and assistance.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Weak help from the West? Why should we help Al Qaeda, a foreign organization, from overthrowing a sovereign foreign nation just because Qadhafy is pissed that JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs ripped him and the Libyan people off? Besides, don't you know that US and UK boots have been on the ground there long before the NATO "humanitarian" bombing began? Don't be naive.

Re:Missing the point

[siddesu]

But Bush was fighting very effectively in Iraq. Was Saddam killed in the first hours of the war, or was he executed by a kangaroo court years down the road?

Thank heavens!!

[Rakarra]

Achmed will be able to make his 7pm WoW raid on Ragnaros in the Firelands.

Re:Thank heavens!!

[Co0Ps]

lmao

Re:Thank heavens!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Achmed will be able to make his 7pm WoW raid on Ragnaros in the Firelands.

You're closer to the truth than you know.

To borrow an image from a revolution ago (Unintentionally-ironic CAPTCHA: "macros"!), the folks that turned "If the government shuts down the internet, shut down your government" into a meme are now batting .750 - three out of four.

(No, really, here is some dude from some internet company being quoted on CNN as drawing inspiration from - and I quote - "someone who anonymously advocated for change")

Bouazizi? Down. Mubarak? Down. Gadaffi? OK, so he went full retard and it took a little longer and the Internet needed some help (in the form of bombs) from NATO, but down is still [i]down[/i].

Iran? Well, you always plan to throw one away. But even there, the regime's time is limited.

Are they Legion? Hell if I know. At three governments out of four, Anonymous is learning.

Re:Thank heavens!!

[Darinbob]

Dammit, he went afk again!

Re:Thank heavens!!

[Sasayaki]

/g brb bombing

Premature Celebration

[relikx]

The dubious rebel claims have been inflated in the past, it's great they are controlling the infrastructure that exists but it could easily be fleeting. Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli. I have a sneaking suspicion a terrible brand of urban warfare emerges before the internet is anywhere near reliable. Still, the article doesn't mention that the site for Libyan Telecom and Technology posted a congratulations message so - for the time being - it was restored on a national level.

Re:Premature Celebration

[james.mcarthur]

"Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli."

Its a trap!

Re:Premature Celebration

[phantomfive]

Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli.

They were mercenaries (or at least, that's the report, which is as reliable as anything out of Libya). They were there because Gaddafi paid them, not out of some misdirected belief in a God that will reward them for brutality, or out of a cause like freedom, or love and desire to protect their families.

They are mercenaries. Money can buy a lot of things, but you will never find someone willing to sacrifice their life for a monetary reward. When things go really bad, the mercenaries leave.

Re:Premature Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its a trap!"

Indeed, they should have guessed by the missing apostrophe.

Re:Premature Celebration

[Xest]

"Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli"

That's because most of them were friends, and families of the general population in Tripoli and hence supported the rebel cause, and so when the rebels arrived, it became easy to defect without fear of being shot or having reprisals against their families.

This isn't to say there aren't a lot of Gaddaffi troops left, there are, but they're mostly the handful of ultra-loyalists and mercenairies. Certainly not a full blown standing army however.

It's worth noting that the NTC (the rebel leadership) had an agreement in place as well, that if Tripoli fell, then the presidential guard would defect to the rebels. It seems that this actually happened for the most part.

If the troops had all stayed loyal and just backed off and hidden somewhere then Nato would've easily been able to spot that kind of movement.

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[taiwanjohn]

Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.

Holy Crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon's strike has been over for like two days, and we've still got locations with no connectivity! These guys finish lobbing grenades and bullets at each other, and in less than a day they've got networks back on line? I'm seriously impressed.

With our...

[MrEricSir]

...combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[Anonymous Coward]

But they've got a small neighboring country, which can order NATO's strongest about as they wish. So, maybe, not so lucky after all.

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Last time I looked Syrias main export was crude oil.

Oh thank god,

[shugah]

At least now they can Facebook.

Ooh! Proposed Constitution Amendment!

[Greyfox]

Oil revenue profits will be distributed equally to all citizens of Libya on a quarterly basis.

You might want to mumble vaguely about presidential term limits, checks and balances, etc, depending on what you guys find valuable. Best of luck, hope you don't find yourself under a new brutal dictator next year.

Re:Ooh! Proposed Constitution Amendment!

[Dunbal]

They had better hope it's gross profit, otherwise I suspect that the oil business will suddenly become highly unprofitable. Hollywood-style.

Re:Ooh! Proposed Constitution Amendment!

[shutdown -p now]

Oil revenue profits will be distributed equally to all citizens of Libya on a quarterly basis.

That's essentially what Gaddafi did (after pocketing a fair bit for himself... but still plenty to pass around). Somehow I think the new guys will not want to be seen as "commies".

Re:Ooh! Proposed Constitution Amendment!

[garyebickford]

Or, better, a percentage of the gross revenues. Even gross profit can be manipulated. And have all politicians' pay defined as a function of individual oil receipts. Actually if I had a say, I would suggest that they reduce their oil production as much as possible consistent with reasonable economic development and diversification. It's an appreciating asset, just sitting underground. The longer they wait to haul it up and sell it, the more valuable it's going to be, and the longer until they have to survive without it.

Re:Ooh! Proposed Constitution Amendment!

[delinear]

There are already accusations that energy companies are doing the same in the West already (massaging profits so customers don't balk when record profits are announced alongside record price rises).

wow

[Aaron87]

it's good

So let's start the clock until.....

[Eightbitgnosis]

These rebel forces decide they don't like America, and then use the training and weaponry we provided against ourselves.

Re:So let's start the clock until.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't put your dirty hands on their oil, and everything will be alright.

Re:So let's start the clock until.....

[shutdown -p now]

That clock has been started a long time ago (also see sig).

Whatever

[oldmac31310]

The new guy will be 'our' guy and the people will be just as fucked as ever. Who the fuck cares? With the new guy they'll be able to use Bacefook, Witter and eBay. AWESOME! Triumph for...ah fuckit...

Juicy Couture Outlet

[Anonymous Coward]

The Juicy Couture Outlet offerings range from perfume,watches,sunglasses,Juicy Courue tracksuits,Juicy Couture handbags to toiletries, Juicy Couture Bags, and so on.

The Real Libya

[Anonymous Coward]

Libya only had the best living conditions in the region. The UN won't be far behind, since they can't feed themselves.

With a 6-digit UID, you should know better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is "news for nerds," and DOES NOT necessarily have to pertain to technology.

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[Dahamma]

"Although Syria is not a major oil exporter by Middle Eastern standards, oil is a major pillar of the economy. According to the International Monetary Fund, oil sales for 2010 were projected to generate $3.2 billion for the Syrian government and account for 25.1% of the state's revenue. Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2.5 billion barrels of petroleum reserves as of January 1, 2010"

Syria has a fair amount of oil... enough to get its neighbors interested, at least...

and 3.ly

[Anonymous Coward]

yay!
ooooh, you where sarcastic.

Now let's see if the rebels can spot the undemocratic oil-companies dictatorships...

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.

The people of Libya are fully responsible for this Revolution. It has absolutely nothing to do with oil, dickhead.

There's a fair chance here

[jopsen]

Granted that the rebels already have embassies in a quite a few countries, and have consistently stated they are interested in democracy, I think there might just be a chance we'll see that. But again they rebels aren't one homogeneous group, civil war is certainly still a possibility.

Re:There's a fair chance here

[alfredos]

civil war is certainly still a possibility.

So, what do you call the current situation?

Re:There's a fair chance here

[jopsen]

civil war is certainly still a possibility.

So, what do you call the current situation?

I'm gonna go with "somewhat uncomfortable".
- But I see your point :)

Alien vs Predator

[Anonymous Coward]

Internationally, the "old regime" has little support.

The "old regime" had lots of support until few months ago.

But Gadaffi was a tough guy to deal with, so oil and infrastructure companies will have much easier time by simply putting their cronies into new 'democratic' government.

I mean, I've lived in 2 such countries, I still find it amusing to see how ignorant westerners are about these issues - they still believe it's somehow all done because of people and their freedom. Hahaha.

Funnily enough, the 'international community' (whatever that means) never had any problems w/ Gadaffi when he was busy bankrolling Abu Nidal, or backing terrorists in Western Europe, or invading Chad, or getting involved in supporting other renegade countries, like Iran. It's only once the rebels seized Cyrenaica and essentially captured Libya's oil that they started having problems w/ Gadaffi.

Really speaking, there is little to pick b/w these 2 sides - both are anti-Western, by & large, and neither would see a pluralistic democracy if brought to power. Gadaffi we know, and if the rebels win, chances are more likely than not that they'll have an Islamic regime, like the Muslim Brotherhood wants to install in Egypt & Syria. A number of the rebels are also former al Qaeda fighters, so to pretend that they have nothing to do w/ Islamic supremacists is simply self deluding. And once they come to power, they'll ensure that Libyan support for jihadi activity against anybody - Israel, Western Europe, etc continues.

The ideal situation here is for this civil war to last as long as it can, and not end, so that by the time it's done, there is nothing left in Libya that's of use to anyone. The resultant government and rebels will be too weak to do anything, and not be a threat to anyone. Same goes for Syria - either Assad gets to massacre Sunnis, who are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Muslim Brotherhood, if it comes to power, gets to massacre the Alawites. Essentially, in Syria, the fight is b/w the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood vs Shia Hizbullah. Who would you support?

We (the West) don't have a dog in that fight. Only dog we have is the fight itself. Feed that dog.

Re:Alien vs Predator

[The Master Control P]

So, you propose we actively keep the people of Libya living in misery ("The ideal situation here is for this civil war to last as long as it can, and not end, so that by the time it's done, there is nothing left in Libya that's of use to anyone... Only dog we have is the fight itself. Feed that dog.") because if they ever have any power, they'll turn it against us because they hate us. Now why would they ever have cause to be angry at us?

You really haven't thought your brilliant plan out, have you...

Re:Alien vs Predator

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I have. All these democratic experiments in Islamic countries have only replaced dictatorships w/ regimes that back Islamic supremacists of one hue or another. In Afghanistan, as someone else pointed out, their constitution specifically rules out Shariah-incompatible laws, with results like the Abdul Rahman case, as pointed out. Iraq, after getting 'democracy', now has a government that's a vassal of Iran, just like Syria is. There was an election in the Palestinian Authority, and the winner of that was Hamas. In Egypt, the only organized opposition to Mubarak was the Muslim brotherhood, and once Egypt has regular elections, they are the ones most likely to come to power. Same deal in Syria. Saudi Arabia's is about as close to a kakistocracy as one can get, but if the Sauds are overthrown and they have elections, they too are more likely to elect an al Qaeda like party to power. Bahrein had been prevented from having its rebellion succeed, but had that happened, they too would have gone the way of Iraq.

In the meantime, the governments that did/do exist there weren't much better - whether it's the Sauds, Mubarak, Assad, Gadaffi, et al, they were all happy to let Islamic fanaticism run rampant. Take Syria, for instance. During the US occupation, Syria was happy to let its restive Sunni majority, who they'd normally suppress, pour into Iraq's al Anbar province and join Iraq's al Qaeda and cause attacks on US troops, at the same time that they let Iran have a pipeline to Hizbullah to destabilize Lebanon and attack Israel (note that I don't care what the Judeophobic pro-Islamic pro-Nazi posters on /. think). So obviously, Assad is no friend to the West. But if he gets overthown in this uprising, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of al Qaeda, would be its replacement. Think of it as the Syrian and Egyptian editions of Hamas (actually, vice versa - Hamas is the Pali edition of the Muslim Brotherhood).

So in all these Muslim countries, both the dictatorships that they do have, as well as the mass uprisings that would replace them, are all bad for the West. Using the term 'democratic' in an Islamic setting is a misnomer, since pluralism - particularly religious pluralism - is non-existent. In Egypt, things were always ugly for the Copts, and have only gotten worse. Maronites are fleeing from Lebanon while that country has gone from Sunni to Shia. In Iraq & Pakistan, Christians are @ the receiving end, and even in 'moderate' Malaysia, non-Muslims - Christians, Hindus and other Chinese - are witnessing more discrimination than ever before, and leaving Malaysia in droves. So it's not like one has to only use examples like Saudi Arabia and Somalia to demonstrate what's wrong with Islam.

Which brings us to the above solution I described above. Obviously, 'democracy' - ousting these regimes and letting the people take over - would only result in Islamic regimes taking over, and some of the parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, have pan Islamic designs of bringing back the Caliphate, and are capable of using the OIC to do that. Supporting the outgoing dictatorships is untenable, since it also means the West having to acquiesce to, for instance, Saudi Arabia's policy of intolerance of all non-Muslims. Hence, my Machiavellian solution above - let there be civil wars in all these countries, and if possible, even fuel it so that they don't end - that both parties in each of them are successful in almost eliminating the other. Once each of these countries are a shadow of their former strength and the people no longer have the capability of even persecuting their minorities (that's how weak I want them to be), the problems that they pose can be described as being solved.

Re:Alien vs Predator

[Tsingi]

Sure I have. All these democratic experiments in Islamic countries have only replaced dictatorships w/ regimes that back Islamic supremacists of one hue or another.

Of course, they aren't democratic experiments in anything other than name. The US, (actually the corporations that own the US) doesn't want democracy to exist in these places in anything other than name.

In Afghanistan, as someone else pointed out, their constitution specifically rules out Shariah-incompatible laws, with results like the Abdul Rahman case, as pointed out. Iraq, after getting 'democracy', now has a government that's a vassal of Iran, just like Syria is. There was an election in the Palestinian Authority, and the winner of that was Hamas.

That's right, it was Hamas, and that democratic result wasn't the one the US (read: the corporations) wanted, so they unleashed the terrorists, Israel.

In Egypt, the only organized opposition to Mubarak was the Muslim brotherhood, and once Egypt has regular elections, they are the ones most likely to come to power. Same deal in Syria. Saudi Arabia's is about as close to a kakistocracy as one can get, but if the Sauds are overthrown and they have elections, they too are more likely to elect an al Qaeda like party to power. Bahrein had been prevented from having its rebellion succeed, but had that happened, they too would have gone the way of Iraq.

I know the Muslims aren't Christians, but what is so wrong with them running their own country? They are Muslims after all.

There are problems with Islam, just as there are problems with Christianity. We'd be better off without both of them, but one is no better than the other. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who runs the country as long as the US gets the oil. That has been proven ad nauseum.

In the meantime, the governments that did/do exist there weren't much better - whether it's the Sauds, Mubarak, Assad, Gadaffi, et al, they were all happy to let Islamic fanaticism run rampant. Take Syria, for instance. During the US occupation, Syria was happy to let its restive Sunni majority, who they'd normally suppress, pour into Iraq's al Anbar province and join Iraq's al Qaeda and cause attacks on US troops, at the same time that they let Iran have a pipeline to Hizbullah to destabilize Lebanon and attack Israel (note that I don't care what the Judeophobic pro-Islamic pro-Nazi posters on /. think).

Of course you don't, it's glaringly obvious that you are in favour of Israeli and US terrorism. Basically the crusades and the inquisition rolled into one and backed with high tech weapons.

So obviously, Assad is no friend to the West. But if he gets overthown in this uprising, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of al Qaeda, would be its replacement. Think of it as the Syrian and Egyptian editions of Hamas (actually, vice versa - Hamas is the Pali edition of the Muslim Brotherhood).

So in all these Muslim countries, both the dictatorships that they do have, as well as the mass uprisings that would replace them, are all bad for the West. Using the term 'democratic' in an Islamic setting is a misnomer, since pluralism - particularly religious pluralism - is non-existent.

Democracy is not the plan, the US doesn't want a democracy, in the middle east, at home, anywhere.

In Egypt, things were always ugly for the Copts, and have only gotten worse. Maronites are fleeing from Lebanon while that country has gone from Sunni to Shia. In Iraq & Pakistan, Christians are @ the receiving end, and even in 'moderate' Malaysia, non-Muslims - Christians, Hindus and other Chinese - are witnessing more discrimination than ever before, and leaving Malaysia in droves. So it's not like one has to only use examples like Saudi Arabia and Somalia to demonstrate what's wrong with Islam.

Re:Alien vs Predator

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I have. All these democratic experiments in Islamic countries have only replaced dictatorships w/ regimes that back Islamic supremacists of one hue or another.

Yeah, because Mossadegh was quite the islamist.

Re:Alien vs Predator

[unixisc]

Of course, they aren't democratic experiments in anything other than name. The US, (actually the corporations that own the US) doesn't want democracy to exist in these places in anything other than name.

Ah, one more of those Leftist Jihadis that have been coming out of the woodwork since 9/11, having found an entity to succeed communism as the new enemy of the West - Islamic jihad.

That's right, it was Hamas, and that democratic result wasn't the one the US (read: the corporations) wanted, so they unleashed the terrorists, Israel.

Of course!!! Spoken like a true Nazi! Can't wait to have all those Jews eradicated!

I know the Muslims aren't Christians, but what is so wrong with them running their own country? They are Muslims after all.

Translation: they are savages who don't know how to peacefully co-exist with anyone else - Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or even Atheists. So why not let them rape women belonging to these other groups, slit the throats of their men, kidnap their children and do whatever else they feel like.

There are problems with Islam, just as there are problems with Christianity. We'd be better off without both of them, but one is no better than the other. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who runs the country as long as the US gets the oil. That has been proven ad nauseum.

Whatever problems are there with Christianity, or any other religion, is internal - restricted to their own adherents. They don't bother about followers of other religions. That's different for Muslims - the Quran calls on them to fight infidels and not stop until Islamic law is supreme worldwide, and all non-Muslims are forced to brown-nose Muslims. In other words, when Muslims follow what the Quran teaches, non-Muslims get affected!

As far as oil goes, the US gets only a small percentage of it from the middle east - the bulk of it is from Canada, and some from Russia. Of course, it's irrelevant where the oil goes, because at the end of the day, if a country like, say, Belgium, cannot buy it from Libya, they'll buy it from Kuwait.

Of course you don't, it's glaringly obvious that you are in favour of Israeli and US terrorism. Basically the crusades and the inquisition rolled into one and backed with high tech weapons.

From a fanboi who is rooting for Mohammedan savages, who rape non-Muslim women, slit the throats of non-Muslims, claim non-Muslim bodies after they are dead in order to possess their property (something prevalent in Malaysia and now Pakistan), who teach their people that Jews are apes & rats while Christians are pigs and dogs, and one of whose countries (Pakistan) is already nuclear while another (Iran) is trying to be, this sure is priceless!

Democracy is not the plan, the US doesn't want a democracy, in the middle east, at home, anywhere.

It's not about what the US wants, and initially, the US was not involved in the events in Libya, until the Europeans, and some clueless Republicans called on Obama to pick the side of the rebels. Ultimately, it's about what the people of the countries involved themselves want. But while they want freedom, it's just for themselves, but not their fellow citizens unless it happens to be of their same sub-groups, clans, creeds and whatever. The average Muslim in Egypt who supports the Muslim brotherhood doesn't want Copts to live with the same freedoms and dignity that they want for themselves.

What wrong with Islam is that it is a religion. Religion/cult, the same thing.

Islam is more a cult - albeit a cult with a membership of 1.3 billion - more akin to the Branch Davidians, the Heavensgate, the Moonies, the Aum Shinko, the Communists, then it is to mainstream religions like Christianity, Buddhism, et al. What makes it more venal is that bloated membership of 1.3 billion.

Lies, damn lies.

[aleckais]

Do you still take heed of what the usual media report? Tripoli is under government control. Do yourself a favor, stop listening to what CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and the like say (not to mention the prostitution of The New York Times and practically of all the major newspapers, as far as literature is concerned, publishing Pentagon press releases). But neither do believe your eyes: what is shown isn't Tripoli, as far fetched as is may seem, this is shameless fakery from Qatari sets (google that, and ask yourself why on earth these so-called rebels only say â" as automata â" `Allah u-Akbar'? surely they won't exhibit a libyan accent or dialect). Moreover Saif al Islam and Mohammed Gaddafi were not under arrest (somehow Mohammed just `escaped', Saif appeared even on BBC) and Khamis is alive. How long this full fledged falsification will continue? Rebels are just decoys, what is happening is that German (Grenzschutzgruppe), French (GIGN), British (SAS) and likely U.S. special forces, private armies and légions étrangÃres with Al Qaeda factions are attacking mostly civilians: the 21 August's toll is, more than 1000 deaths, 5000 wounded. They are aided in their progress by NATO bombings of non-military assets. It is time overdue to begin boycotting these bottomless sinkholes and war criminals. Goebbels would not believe how far media lies have reached.

Re:Lies, damn lies.

[theVarangian]

Rebels are just decoys, what is happening is that German (Grenzschutzgruppe), French (GIGN), British (SAS) and likely U.S. special forces, private armies and lÃf©gions Ãf©trangÃfres with Al Qaeda factions are attacking mostly civilians: the 21 August's toll is, more than 1000 deaths, 5000 wounded. They are aided in their progress by NATO bombings of non-military assets. It is time overdue to begin boycotting these bottomless sinkholes and war criminals. Goebbels would not believe how far media lies have reached.

What have you been smoking... I want some.

Re:Lies, damn lies.

[aleckais]

`What have you been smoking... I want some.' Non-western mass-media. Using one's own intellect helps also. As to Rebels being decoys (but even what is shown of their `successes' on ground) new developments shall make it abundantly clear (again google a bit).

Re:Lies, damn lies.

[kvezach]

He must have been digging into Moussa Ibrahim's secret stash.

Re:Lies, damn lies.

[aleckais]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=182046211866380&set=a.143311932406475.29932.143308589073476&type=1&theater

Same old story

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion of who holds the power isn't nearly as significant as the fact that the power exists in the first place. The more power that exists, the more exploitation and "abuse" of that power will occur. (I put "abuse" in quotes because in this sense, it is power itself which is the abuse, irrespective of who holds it.)

This is as true in 2011 as it was at the dawn of organized coercion.

Minority here

[Anonymous Coward]

But iI dont really give a crap about what happens in the middle east. There is always something going on in the middle east and it is getting rather boring.

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[Tsingi]

Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.

The people of Libya are fully responsible for this Revolution. It has absolutely nothing to do with oil, dickhead.

I think that is what "dickhead" is saying, coward.

Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus...

[BCGlorfindel]

Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.

I see what you did there, very clever and funny.

Well, except that part where the Syrian people are bleeding and dying for the same lack of intervention.

Oh, and except for the fact that 25% of Syria's revenues come from oil exports...

When do stupid, ignorant, and flat out false remarks about evil dictators murdering their people become funny?

Instant death sentence.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the internet is being used as a tactical and strategic tool for war and initiating stikes and detinating rpgs is reason for someone up there to make a law that the penalty for using the internet for violence against sovereign countries is an instant death sentence for all involved.

Don't you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet restored after failed NATO attempt to coverup that Qadhafy and his son Saif were not killed/captured yet after their botched amphibious assault.

Central Bankers

[bill_mcgonigle]

I know I shouldn't be so cynical but I have to ask who is the new dictator?

The Central Bankers.

Consider this:

1) 2010 - Gaddafi announces intent to peg oil to the 'gold dinar'.
2) Feb 29, 2011 - 'National Transitional Council' formed.
3) Mar 19, 2011 - NATO Operations Begin
3a) Mar 19, 2011 - National Transitional Council announces new Central Bank of Benghazi and New National Oil Company. Because what rebel forces really need is a new central bank.
4) Aug 19, 2011 - Operation Mermaid Dawn (Battle of Tripoli) begins. NATO troops remove 1.4 tons of gold from Tripoli.

All coincidental, right? The real reason to go into Libya is because Gaddafi shot up 'his' citizens, like in Sudan, like in Syria, like in Bhutan, like in ... well, the point is made.

Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

You know i've been watching this whole affair for a while now, and i was constantly thinking of what did it remind me. Finally, it got it - the 1917 revolution in Russia.

Uprising, rebels fighting "for the greater good", "against the oppressive regime", all bullshit. Just as these poor factory workers who "never had anything to lose but their chains" somehow got hold of shiny german mausers and Lenin, while being caught by foreign intelligence somehow ended up in Switzerland with a whole lot of cash on his hands, which he used to finance the revolution, etc. etc. It was truly a "world revolution", only backwards - it happened because the whole world helped it happen.

The same i see now. The "uprising" of poor people that the evil dictator had left with nothing, that somehow got hold of whole load of new shiny FN 2000's and other pretty modern and expensive firearms, with whole lot of disinformation about whether they did or did not go into Tripoli, loads of press falsifications going along with cheering from the West. "Weak help from the west" my ass.

Isn't this what the UN is for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the UN be involved in helping transition these countries? Or at least offer assistance?

Would a rebel group acting "in good faith" accept UN help? Is the UN involved already?