Staggering numbers on Syria..

[kentonio]

you haven't any idea of what you're talking about.

I know next to nothing about Francia, other than what I've read on the wiki page. He sounds like a bloodthirsty dictator who oppressed the people with a regime of terror. Please tell me what I'm missing.

[C0ckney]

Libya and Syria have no comparisons.

If one were smart enough to look at the tribal history of Libya and how the country was ill-formed by the Italians, then you would easily see that brutality by one faction would be the only way to control the other two.

As far as the West stepping in, did we forget that the western tribal dominated army was planning a wholesale massacre of the eastern tribes? I am shocked that some would think that was okay in the name of "stability". Libya had deteriorated to that level on its own...or at least without western help.

It is clear that Libya never should have been one country, but three from the beginning...at the very least, it should have been two. Saying that Gaddafi's removal from power caused the instability is just simply ill-informed. The entire situation was unstable and growing worse by the day.

were they planning a 'wholesale' massacre of the eastern tribes? that sounds like the sort of excuse that's been used time and again to justify intervention; i certainly don't remember seeing any evidence of it. and while i agree with you that libya shouldn't have been a country in the first place, the fact is that it was one and, according to the UN, the best place to live on the african continent. gaddafi would not have fallen were it not for western intervention, and it's fairly clear that things would have been better had he not fallen. several thousand dead, the economy in ruins, 1/3(!) of the population fleeing - and this is only the start. the situation is getting worse by the day.

Libya is overwhelmingly Sunni and religion seems to have little to do with any conflict.

except for the various islamist groups that have emerged since gaddafi's fall...indeed i just read that ansar al-sharia has pledged its allegiance to the islamic state, which if true is a pretty major development.

Syria, on the other hand, is a different situation. Syria is a homogeneous country currently being ruled by a wealthy and very much minority sect. The opposing sects are spread generally through the country and not geographically concentrated. This is far more a religious conflict than Libya is as the Allawites are Shi'a and 80% of the population is Sunni.

Given that Iran and Saudi are playing out a proxy fight in Syria, this simply makes the situation worse and much harder for the west to effectively intervene to stop the fighting.

well yes and no. the syrian conflict wasn't really about religion at the start, and although religion has come to play an increasing rôle, it is still other factors that matter. that's why there are a lot of secular sunnis still fighting for the regime. the kurds are mostly sunnis but are fighting both the regime and ISIS, while increasingly working with the opposition and assyrian christian militias. however, in other parts of the country most of the minority groups have thrown their lot in with the regime. this is perhaps not surprising considering what the rebels have done. to give but one example homs used to have over 150,000 christians, after the rebels took the city that number fell to fewer than 1,000.

syria is around 75% but only around 60% arab and it is still quite tribal in many areas; there are for example four major alawite tribes. the situation is very complicated and, as you rightly say, made even more so by foreign intervention.

[PLATO]

were they planning a 'wholesale' massacre of the eastern tribes? that sounds like the sort of excuse that's been used time and again to justify intervention; i certainly don't remember seeing any evidence of it. and while i agree with you that libya shouldn't have been a country in the first place, the fact is that it was one and, according to the UN, the best place to live on the african continent. gaddafi would not have fallen were it not for western intervention, and it's fairly clear that things would have been better had he not fallen. several thousand dead, the economy in ruins, 1/3(!) of the population fleeing - and this is only the start. the situation is getting worse by the day.

Here is just one article from before the decision to intervene. Hardly seems like a stable situation.....

Libyans have taken to the streets and buried their dead, accusing government forces of perpetrating massacres in Benghazi and other towns said to have been taken over by anti-regime protesters.

Opposition sources claimed that at least 61 protesters had been killed in three days of unprecedented unrest largely in Libya's impoverished eastern region, though it was not possible to confirm that figure.

Human Rights Watch reported that 24 people had been killed by Thursday.

Diplomats reported the use of heavy weapons in Benghazi, Libya's second city, and "a rapidly deteriorating situation" in the latest Arab country to be hit by serious unrest.

Amid a near-total official news blackout, fragmentary information and a ban on journalists entering Libya, there was a blizzard of rumours and claims about killings by mercenaries and defections by members of the security forces.

In one highly significant development, prisoners were reported to have escaped en masse from al-Jadida jail in the capital, Tripoli, which has so far been calm.

Supporters of a Libyan "day of rage" on Facebook reported that Derna and other eastern towns had been "liberated" from government forces.

Crowds in Tobruk were shown destroying a statue of Muammar Gaddafi's Green Book, and chanting: "We want the regime to fall," echoing the uprising in neighbouring Egypt. The city's airport was closed.

Troops were reported to have landed at Benghazi airport, suggesting a significant move into the city.

Security forces were also reported to be preparing to attack al-Bayda after protesters blocked the airport runway to prevent reinforcements arriving, according to one exile group.

A statement by the country's powerful revolutionary committees promised a "sharp and violent" response to those who dared to cross the regime's "red lines".

A sermon at Friday prayers in Tripoli, broadcast on state TV, urged people to ignore reports in foreign media "which doesn't want our country to be peaceful, which ... is the aim of Zionism and imperialism, to divide our country".

Gaddafi supporters were shown on TV staging noisy demonstrations, with the leader briefly appearing in the early hours of Friday at Green Square in the centre of the city, surrounded by crowds of cheering supporters.

Umm Muhammad, a political activist in Benghazi, told the Guardian that 38 people had died there. "They were using live fire here, not just teargas. This is a bloody massacre — in Benghazi, in al-Bayda, all over Libya. They are releasing prisoners from the jails to attack the demonstrators. The whole Libyan people wants to bring down this regime." Benghazi's al-Jala hospital was appealing for emergency blood supplies to help treat the injured.

Ramadan Briki, the Benghazi-based editor of Quryna newspaper, said 24 people had died. Ashour Shamis, a London-based Libyan journalist, said protesters had stormed the city's Kuwafiyah prison and freed dozens of political prisoners. Escapees set fire to the prosecutor's office, a bank and a police station.

Amateur footage showed buildings burning and protesters who had been shot dead. The pictures, given to al-Jazeera TV, recorded streets empty of police or army units. Much of the violence was blamed on "mercenaries" reportedly brought in from neighbouring Chad.

Amer Saad, a political activist from Derna, told al-Jazeera: "The protesters in al-Bayda have been able to seize control of the military airbase in the city and have executed 50 African mercenaries and two Libyan conspirators. Even in Derna today, a number of conspirators were executed. They were locked up in the holding cells of a police station because they resisted, and some died burning inside the building.

"This will be the end of every oppressor who stands with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is over, that's it, he has no presence here any more. The eastern regions of Libya are now free regions. If he wants to reclaim it, he will need to bomb us with nuclear or chemical bombs. This is his only option. The people have stood and said they will not go back."

Several demonstrations were reported in western Libya. The so-called Khamis brigades, special militia units commanded by one of Gaddafi's sons, broke up a demonstration in Alzentan.

Shamis predicted that the regime might hesitate before using massive force to restore order in Benghazi or elsewhere in the east. Gaddafi, in power for 41 years, is the Arab world's longest-serving leader and presides over one of its most repressive regimes.

Libya, current chairman of the Arab League, announced that it had asked for next month's summit to be postponed "because of the circumstances in the Arab region," the Jana news agency said.

The Foreign Office has meanwhile altered its travel advice on Libya, advising against all but essential travel to the cities of Benghazi, Ajdabiya, Bayda, Marj, Derna, Ajdabiya and Tobruk in eastern Libya. It also advised against all but essential travel to areas bordering Sudan, Chad, Niger and Algeria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/18/libya-protests-massacres-reported

except for the various islamist groups that have emerged since gaddafi's fall...indeed i just read that ansar al-sharia has pledged its allegiance to the islamic state, which if true is a pretty major development.

Not sure that this is a result of western intervention or just a further example of Sunni extremism taking hold in many Sunni countries. I suspect that these groups would have emerged as IS supporters in Libya anyway given the situation before the intervention. In fact, I would wager that they would have been even more radical if, in fact, Gadaffi had ordered massive massacres by his military.

well yes and no. the syrian conflict wasn't really about religion at the start, and although religion has come to play an increasing rôle, it is still other factors that matter. that's why there are a lot of secular sunnis still fighting for the regime. the kurds are mostly sunnis but are fighting both the regime and ISIS, while increasingly working with the opposition and assyrian christian militias. however, in other parts of the country most of the minority groups have thrown their lot in with the regime. this is perhaps not surprising considering what the rebels have done. to give but one example homs used to have over 150,000 christians, after the rebels took the city that number fell to fewer than 1,000.

syria is around 75% but only around 60% arab and it is still quite tribal in many areas; there are for example four major alawite tribes. the situation is very complicated and, as you rightly say, made even more so by foreign intervention.

I think we agree on this one.

[kentonio]

and while i agree with you that libya shouldn't have been a country in the first place, the fact is that it was one and, according to the UN, the best place to live on the african continent. gaddafi would not have fallen were it not for western intervention, and it's fairly clear that things would have been better had he not fallen.

No it is not 'fairly clear'. If life was so amazing in Libya, why do you think the people rushed to overthrow him once the opportunity presented itself? You can point at human development indexes all you want, but a building built on bad foundations will never remain stable.

[Aeson]

No, it hasn't. There have been brief eras of democracy in limited areas that have been conquered from without or undermined from within. Show me Athens and I'll show you it's conquest by Sparta. Give me the Roman Republic and I'll show you Ceasar. The French Revolution? The Terror, than Napoleon. How long did the Wiemar republic last?

Most dictatorships are born of revolution, very few democracies are. Countless colonies win freedom from colonizers only to go on and oppress themselves. Russia traded one autocracy for another, as did China.

Democracy is not inevitable, it's a struggle, and it always will be.

You are missing the forest for the trees. All the temporary setbacks you mention ... dictators or other authoritarian forms of government. Yet you want to pretend dictators are somehow the solution. They are roadblocks to progress, nothing more. And we have progressed overall ... greatly.

Demonstrably the people of this world are now more free than at any previous point in history. That is in spite of the efforts of dictators, not because of it.

[Aeson]

well we've had one crystal clear example in this thread of the reverse being true.

No, Gaddafi and his rule was (and for likely decades to come will be) a leading contributor to the current mess in Libya. You just want to pretend the effects of his rule don't reflect on his rule.

[Aeson]

and for a historical example how about josé gaspar rodrÃguez de francia.

Without going into the particulars of de Francia ... I'll just point out that he never would have held power if not for a revolution. What would you have said to those saying "better the devil we know" if they were supporting Spain before that revolution?

[kentonio]

Am I missing something about Francia? His wiki makes him sound like he started out a great leader but then turned into a complete monster who held Paraguay in a reign of fear.

[The Mad Monk]

You are missing the forest for the trees. All the temporary setbacks you mention ... dictators or other authoritarian forms of government. Yet you want to pretend dictators are somehow the solution. They are roadblocks to progress, nothing more. And we have progressed overall ... greatly.

Demonstrably the people of this world are now more free than at any previous point in history. That is in spite of the efforts of dictators, not because of it.

I never said they were the solution. Never even suggested it.

[C0ckney]

I know next to nothing about Francia, other than what I've read on the wiki page. He sounds like a bloodthirsty dictator who oppressed the people with a regime of terror. Please tell me what I'm missing.

francia took a country that was dirt poor, illiterate and dominated by a spanish colonial elite. by his death paraguay's population was mostly literate (certainly compared to other south american countries), well fed and had started on an ambitious programme of industrialisation, which was continued by his successors. this programme was especially remarkable as unlike other south american countries, which relied on foreign, principally british, capital, paraguay used its own resources, hiring british engineers directly. the results could be seen in factories and railways as paraguay developed its own industry.

he tried to break the colonial elite by forced intermarriage. he actually forbade spaniards from marrying each other and decreed that they had to marry blacks, indians or mulattoes. he was in some ways against marriage itself and led by example, fathering several bastards. he was hostile to the church and abolished tithes, as well as seizing its lands.

[kentonio]

Yet didn't he also do a lot of pretty terrible things too, especially later? Not that the forced marraige thing isn't already pretty terrible of course.

[C0ckney]

No it is not 'fairly clear'. If life was so amazing in Libya, why do you think the people rushed to overthrow him once the opportunity presented itself? You can point at human development indexes all you want, but a building built on bad foundations will never remain stable.

yes i can point to the HDI, and you know why? because it is a measure of human progress and thus a very good metric for quality of life. it certainly tells us a lot more than homespun metaphors.

[C0ckney]

Yet didn't he also do a lot of pretty terrible things too, especially later? Not that the forced marraige thing isn't already pretty terrible of course.

yes he did. but the important thing is that life in paraguay improved enormously under his reign.

the marriage thing (which wasn't forced as such, a person could choose their partner as long as that partner was of a different race) is interesting and of course depends on one's point of view. i for example believe that the south american elite is ****stain on human history and support any and all measures that hasten its disappearance. francia was a man who took serious action to break that elite and although he ultimately failed, that deserves credit.

[C0ckney]

Without going into the particulars of de Francia ... I'll just point out that he never would have held power if not for a revolution. What would you have said to those saying "better the devil we know" if they were supporting Spain before that revolution?

well i said that the devil you know is sometimes better, which of course means that sometimes he isn't; it depends on the situation. certainly in this situation francia was a dictator whose measures improved people's lives.

[C0ckney]

Here is just one article from before the decision to intervene. Hardly seems like a stable situation.....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/18/libya-protests-massacres-reported

of course, but this was a dictatorial regime's response to protests against its rule, rather like that of the regime in syria. it's not evidence that a 'wholesale' massacre would have happened. i don't deny that there would have been some blood-letting.

Not sure that this is a result of western intervention or just a further example of Sunni extremism taking hold in many Sunni countries. I suspect that these groups would have emerged as IS supporters in Libya anyway given the situation before the intervention. In fact, I would wager that they would have been even more radical if, in fact, Gadaffi had ordered massive massacres by his military.

i disagree here. what gives these groups the space to operate is the vacuum created when regimes fall or become weakened. it's only in places like iraq, syria and now libya that these kind of movements can flourish; strongmen can usually keep them marginal. one of the sad ironies of the arab spring is that genuine popular movements created space for islamic extremists.

I think we agree on this one.