Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
Gaddafi maybe a dictator in the eyes of the West, and even a tinpot one at that, but in the Muslim and African world, he is not viewed so. He commands respect and he has done much to project Islam power and African prestige. He is not a Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire, that he can be given a shakedown without a whimper from the international community. The UNSC voting pattern would indicate the drift.

[snipped for brevity]

The Americans made not be proud of what the US is doing, but the world cannot and does not grudge what the US has been forced to do!
Hi Ray, I will attempt a broad response rather than just a point for point one.

I have always had a problem with trying to understand what exactly the Arab and African Worlds were really thinking. Mostly the views that were expressed were coming from spokesmen from the various regimes whose view was obviously prepackaged. Then given the propaganda and the way the news was/still is presented in most of these countries there would be little doubt as to how the various peoples were indoctrinated.

In summary then Gaddafi has recently got some support from a section of the Ugandan population (as reported on TV here) as a result of his building mosques around the country there and dispensing aid. Understandable. Things are slowly changing among the educated in Africa (by my observation) where the young educated can recognise an old-school idiot when they see one. Gaddafi, Mugabe etc are increasingly seen a joke and a relic of a bygone era.

Look at the Democracy Index. It is from that list that the West (IMHO) should decide how to deal with the various countries on the continent. There are only 26 full democracies in the world. Surely one should treat these nations “better” than the rats-and-mice at the bottom of the list? From #113 downwards apart from oil and some strategic minerals can’t think why they are even allowed in the UN or have diplomatic relations with the top 50 odd countries?

Why should the West be concerned what these authoritarian regimes say or care about them? So lets move onto the AU. An absolute waste of time and someone else’s money. Who did they send to Libya to negotiate? What is democracy and human rights status of these countries? They have credibility with who? Little wonder they were shown the door by the rebels in Bengazi.

The US displaying a trait of “patience and Machiavellian astuteness!!”. I would really like to hear how you arrived at that conclusion as the US clearly hasn’t had the vaguest idea of what is happening in the Arab world and what to do about it. In fact the current US administration’s utter incompetence has woken up and scared half of Europe into action… (at last).

In another reply I have stated that when the motivation for an intervention is sound but the method of the intervention is poor or unsuccessful then sadly the whole concept of humanitarian intervention gets questioned (instead of just questioning how they went about it).

Yes over time a lot of people have been let down by a lack of willingness to intervene but that does not diminish in any way the soundness of humanitarian intervention as a doctrine … (even if it upsets the Russians and the Chinese.)

Acting in one’s national interest is expected. This is why that hackneyed call “its all about oil” is so ridiculous. Of course it is and it always will be. Yes and (as we see in the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and others) there are times when one has to be pragmatic over morality and other issues.

Yes the US needs a change in style and intervention method. I agree.

I suggest that the people of the world are more ignorant than we give them credit for

If no one can say the US were behind the humiliation of the Soviets in Afghanistan I suggest it proves my point that the people of the world are more ignorant than not.

All the US needs is a change in attitude and style. It is just very difficult to turn this supertanker in high seas. It’s a 50-50 call whether they can achieve this IMHO