What the heck is REALLY happening lately in the Middle East???

[bretonbanquet]

It hasn't, to be fair. It might, but it hasn't yet. There's a line between revolution and civil war, and civil war entails at least two organised groups trying to gain control of the country, or part of it. There's no coherent organisation within the revolutionaries as yet, and they're not actively trying to gain control of the country, rather to just get rid of the government and its leader. There's no idea of a plan after that, apparently.

[KarmaContestant]

The reality of what is happening in Libya right now is nothing short of awful. I don't understand the scarce coverage being given on U.S. television, and while I'm not sure that foreign intervention is the right thing yet, scenes like these:

(WARNING: THESE ARE VERY GRAPHIC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...s-and-video/4/

...are very disturbing and leave me wondering how long the world will continue to sit back and carry on with this 'wait and see' approach while Gaddafi orders the murder of civilians.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

The reality of what is happening in Libya right now is nothing short of awful. I don't understand the scarce coverage being given on U.S. television, and while I'm not sure that foreign intervention is the right thing yet, scenes like these:

(WARNING: THESE ARE VERY GRAPHIC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...s-and-video/4/

...are very disturbing and leave me wondering how long the world will continue to sit back and carry on with this 'wait and see' approach while Gaddafi orders the murder of civilians.

I think it's tempting to think that the U.S. or some western alliance should intervene, despite the fact that we're already fighting two wars. Three, if you count the so-called "war on terror." But at the end of the day it's another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If we sit on our hands and do nothing, the U.S. will be accused of tacitly condoning the corrupt regimes fighting against their own people; the last thing U.S. needs is yet another leaderless, broken country on its hands full of ethnic tribes that hate each other. On the other hand, if the U.S. does support the rebels, the U.S. then gets accused of "nation building" ala Iraq or scouring to feed its oil addiction. And Iran will find it yet another excuse to rally the Arab countries to fight off "the infidels" and give them further reasons for trying to wipe Israel off the map. After all, the Jews are the enemy, not the Arab dictators robbing their own countries blind!

If nothing else, this is not a referendum on the state of theocratic absolute governmental authority in the Middle East as much as it is a referendum on Facebook! My goodness, Mark Zuckerberg must feel quite pleased with himself knowing that he is responsible for what is becoming one of the most significant socio-political movements in modern history. And to think... it all started because he wanted to start a "hot or not" website for Cambridge-area universities...

[bretonbanquet]

The West would do well to stay out of it, that is unless we want a whole row of Afghanistans. Western intervention in these things does not generally result in fewer lives being lost, and it causes resentment among the inhabitants of whichever country we're talking about at the time. The current trouble in Libya is a recent thing, and it may well only last a few more days. Western leaders can use diplomatic means to make it clear whose side they're on, and other non-military means. The one thing that will aid the religious nut-jobs over there is Western powers throwing their weight around, trying to "help".

Corrupt and brutal regimes are slaughtering their people in many countries, yet the West is only interested in oil-rich countries. Nobody helped the Sudanese, the Zimbabweans or the Burmese. How about Rwanda, which the US called a "local conflict" and refused to step in - 800,000 people get killed making Libya look like a play school. We just sat and watched. Nobody gives a toss because we can't use those countries. Nobody talks about invading China because they brutalise the Tibetans - too much trouble. Keep buying their cheap crap, give them the Olympics and let's hope they lighten up a bit. It's a bad joke.

Facebook didn't cause the latest round of revolutions - Facebook gets used in the course of events, like new technology gets used in the course of everything. Nobody blamed the telephone for the First World War.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

The reality of what is happening in Libya right now is nothing short of awful. I don't understand the scarce coverage being given on U.S. television,.

Reporter's movements and what they're able to say and do are being very tightly controlled by Ghadaffi's government.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I think it's tempting to think that the U.S. or some western alliance should intervene, despite the fact that we're already fighting two wars. Three, if you count the so-called "war on terror." But at the end of the day it's another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. ...

I'll give you one guess who put Ghadaffi into power in the first place.
He's "our guy."
This whole thing has served to help cement an opinion I've been forming
for some time; the U.S. needs to mind its own damn bidness.
(Although I have mixed feelings about it and feel it's "not that simple."
And surprise, surprise, we sold him a truckload of F-14 fighters, RECENTLY
sold him attack helicopters, and sold him 14 heavy seriously kick-ass 155 mm
Paladin howitzers. The French sold him high-tech machine guns and have a billion-
dollar contract to sell him high-tech fighter planes which are more advanced than
an F-18. Italy sold him truckloads of Baretta submachine guns. The Chinese are
also in on the high-tech cutting-edge fighter game. Everybody and their dog has
gotten in on this money-making machine, and now i.m.o. we're paying the price.
We never seem to be able to learn this lesson.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

If nothing else, this is not a referendum on the state of theocratic absolute governmental authority in the Middle East as much as it is a referendum on Facebook! My goodness, Mark Zuckerberg must feel quite pleased with himself knowing that he is responsible for what is becoming one of the most significant socio-political movements in modern history. And to think... it all started because he wanted to start a "hot or not" website for Cambridge-area universities
...

I've heard that the actual role of Facebook in all this is still "up for debate"
(and will probably be debated for years to come). There's speculation that it was
actually the Israeli Intelligence services that were behind all of this - and I've heard
that there's some evidence for this.
In my opinion though, Mark Zuckerberg knew exactly what he was doing all along.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Oh, by the way, just a thought that occurs to me -

Don't forget that China has veto status at the U.N. Security Council.

With billions of dollars at stake - well, they've done it before.
And I would bet any amount of money that they're going to
weigh displeasing us against the oil supply and money from
the sale of the new figher plane, etc. - Whatever fits in more
with their long-term plan is what they're gonna go with, I'd say.

They have *very* heavy involvement in many other African
nations, by the way - it's all on Wikipedia if I remember right.
(There's a lot of mines there that are supplying them with raw
materials for their growing industry.)