Very true. In my opinion, the idea of how "good" or "bad" a country is depends wholly on its citizens. If the citizens are happy, then I can honestly say that I don't think a country is bad. For example, (just an example...) all Cubans that I have met say that they are honestly happy with their country and how it is run. Now I can say I've never been to Cuba, but this is just some Cubans that I have met visiting here for training camps or tournaments, etc.


I don't doubt that the UN did a good job in Libya, both in waiting for the rebels to ask for UN aid, as well as the fact that there were no boots on the ground. In my view, this is how the UN Security forces should act.

To me, this is simply a question of who is in charge. If you have hardline religious leaders, then you're going to have hardline religious laws. It all depends on the leaders and how they run the country...

Excellent point.



And therein lies the problem, in my view, of a theocratically lead nation. You can't have on single ruler because there is always going to be strife between the different religious sects. In my opinion, something similar to a council, with multiple representatives, each representing different religious sects present within the country would be better suited to govern a theocratic nation rather than one single figurehead.

Most definitely!!

Ouch.

Yeah, I think with those videos I can safely retract my skepticism over Gaddafi being lynched. Seems pretty obvious with those videos.

Yet this simply shows the barbarity of those replacing him.

Of course, a government who wants nothing more than to be more extreme than the last - can we really be suprised?

In fairness, I'd be cautious calling it a government or tying his treatment to the NTC. Those who captured him were not by any definition a government, but a band of rebels, who honestly didn't seem to be very much under anyone's control. I don't think his treatment had anything to do with orders, just personal retribution.

Too early to talk about a government yet, so I wouldn't pass judgment on them at this point. There really isn't a working government there at all at the moment.

Define working government. Its a government that is internationally recognized, that has an emissary to the UN. That has stated its foundation going forward will be set upon a known set of law (sharia). If you mean that it isn't a federalized or centralized control structure for everything from logistics to cops and firefighters on the street, then ok. But by every international standard they exist as a government.

The group that captured him were fighters on behalf of the NTC. The NTC confirmed his capture - and his death - very rapidly. They were the directors of the rebellion. Yet barbarity happened - and the existing power structure had its rep in the UN saying "No, he wasn't lynched" as late as yesterday - when the facts show otherwise.

Add in their stated goal of having a country based on a law system that suppresses the human rights of many of its citizens (women especially) - go ahead and tell me that they are not headed down an ugly path.

I'm actually not claiming it's heading down any path. It's a wait-and-see for me. And frankly, the notion that they can't control the men fighting on their side doesn't reflect well on their effectiveness.

Everyone in Lybia probably knew pretty quickly about Gaddafi's demise. That has nothing to do with the NTCs information network - information these days spreads easily. Probably the average media watcher knew what was happening around the same time as the government officials. I really genuinely don't believe that anyone higher up had any control over Gaddafi's treatment.

I'm not being an optimist here, but I'll give them a benefit of the doubt. When your 'army' is composed of bands of poorly-trained, poorly-organized, but heavily armed men and you have weapons all over a very large but sparsely populated country, there's really a limit to what you can do to control the situation. I don't think the NTC is in control any more than, say, the government in Kabul has ever been in control of Afghanistan. That may be an internationally-recognized government, but not a de-facto very functional one. It's up to Lybians whether they get anywhere from here.

If the new Libya is Islamist, our interests were better served with Qaddafi.

Our interests are all that matters to me.

Note that our (US) interests are coincident with Europe's in this case, it does them no good to have a rich, fundamentalist Islamic state across a millpond from them.

Otherwise speaking more broadly about the 'truth' here, I think it's actually much more banal. I don't think it's either an oligarchic conspiracy to get the oil, or an Islamist conspiracy to sneak their agenda in.

I think the truth is that in Lybia, everyone actually went into it with poorly defined aims and a poor understanding of the situation. In other words, the truth is that noone actually knows what they wanted from Lybia. Even if you look at Lybians themselves, I don't think they quite know what they want from it either. The average Lybian was unhappy with his lot. Certain rebel groups wanted Gaddafi out, others might've been interested in Islamism. The US and Europe are under constant anxiety over their moral obsolescence and irrelevance, and are trying hard to assure themselves that they still matter in the Middle East and elsewhere. As a result, the cause came together for a 'Free Lybia'. Noone actually knows what that means, and noone actually seriously believes it either. In the end it's all just banal anxiety - the average Lybian is worried about his relevance and ability to live and consume safely in the global society, the rebel groups are anxious to matter, whether they're primarily political or religious; NATO was already late to the Arab Spring party, so this is essentially the West throwing a fit that they were not invited from the start. So they were eager to get invited, and jumped the first opportunity to get in, without thinking what that means. The only real motivation for that was staying relevant, no more, no less. What you get as a result is mass psychosis with multiple, equally-psychotic parties involved. You don't need any conspiracies to cause that. You just need to have a whole bunch of people eager to act on their own anxieties and desperate to be relevant, without even having any realistic exit goals.

PS - as you might guess, my conclusion is that it will probably not end well. But let's wait and see. In the end, the ball was already rolling. It's been set in motion by history going back much further than any recent events, and if you look at it in terms of the Arab Spring - it was going to happen anyway, sooner or later. Might as well be pleased that it happened now and, so far, it's not been an outright catastrophe for the West. Sitting by idly and pondering your own interests wouldn't have made this any easier.

West stance over Libya was the uncertainty on whom to place the bet while politically betting on Qaddafi in face of Arab spring wasn't good idea anyway.
So they took bet on lesser evil that gave some little control over the rebellion-which in long term remains to be seen.

I don't think it's an "islamist conspiracy," but I think that the religious are inherently more organized in that region. I also personally make very little distinction between the currently in favor "islamist," and simply "muslim." When a non-fundamentalist version of Islam is empowered I'll change my tune, but currently there are effectively no sects (in terms of total membership compared to muslims at large) that are not fundamentalist (I don't have a double standard, I apply the same definition I'd use for Christian fundies—holy book literalism and infallibility).

I'm more than happy to be pleasantly surprised, but I'd not bet a cup of coffee that things turn out well.

Gaddafi son Saif al-Islam in contact with ICC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15496608

Looks like he'd rather rot in prison than meet the same end as his father.