My last post was a bit harsher in tone that I would have liked, before I continue I'd like to apologize to Asuras for that.
I believe you are mistaken. Saying coalition forces were supported by the Peshmerga in no way implies there was not a rebellion before the Coalition arrived. That said, you could show me evidenced to the contrary, but saying I am contradicting myself is simply not true.
Are you asking me to prove a negative? The Kurdish uprising was in 1991.
Actually, if you want to talk terms of scale, the Peshmerga were more numerous than most estimates for Libyan rebels (70,000 Peshmerga, 17,000 Libyans). In terms of the contributions to the effort, though, I've actually stated the opposite.
Your point? Ignoring that you don't even cite a source for the 70,000 figure, the numbers have to be taken into the context of the size of the force they are opposing. The Libyans actually outnumber
Gaddafi's loyalist forces. Compare to the size of the Iraqi army before the war, at between 350k-400k.
This also ignores the fact that the Kurds are the redheaded stepchild of the region - they could provide significant control over a Kurdistan, but not over Iraq as a whole. While tribal politics is involved in the Libyan uprising, the fact remains that the Rebels managed to gain control over nearly every major city short of Tripoli itself. Gaddafi is going to win Misurata not by conquest of the people within, but because the entire city is being evacuated.
Admittedly a biased source. Forty eight or forty nine is still about fifty, I would think. And it really doesn't surprise me the US pressured nations to support the war, but pressure is a normal part of diplomacy and building international consensus, like it or not.
Some of the countries found out they were on the list through the news. Like the Solomon Islands
I'm not sure which Iraq Protests you're referring to. I think you're talking about the anti-war protests back when the war started, in which case yes, there is more popular support for ousting Ghaddafi than Hussein in the West. I'm not denying that but its really irrelevant in terms of international support, particularly because 'not objecting' does not mean 'supports' and 'international consensus' does not equate to 'popular consensus'.
It's extremely relevant. Soft power is your long-term political support.
The massacres in Libya became national headlines. People learned about the suffering of individual civilians on a personal level, and unlike say, Darfur, nearly the entirety of Libya's population is concentrated along the coast, there is a coherent opposition with a structured leadership, chain of command and area of influence - territory to be defended.
And it matters what the people of Libya think, too. They curse when NATO does not act and cheer when it does.
As I see it, Asuras made the following claims:
1.) There was no rebellion in Iraq in 2003.
As far as you have demonstrated, this is true. There was only assistance from the Kurds, as expected, after the invasion began.
2.) The current Libyan operation is not US lead.Charles Bouchard is Canadian
. Politically speaking, this action was driven by France and the United Kingdom.
And if you've been paying any attention at all, the drop in effectiveness when the United States pulled from its leadership role was very palpable.
3.) There was little international support for the invasion of Iraq.
As I referenced above, there was a lot of political bribery, outright lies, tortured confessions - literally - and massive unpopularity for the war effort.
4.) International support for the Libyan Intervention is widespread.
Again, in terms of soft power support, the Libyan intervention is far more popular.
The underlined ones I take issue with and assert are false. Therefore, if what I say is true, the majority of Asuras assertions are demonstrably false.
1.) Do you want me to cite the existence of the Peshmerga? Nitpicking about what constitutes a rebellion is not relevant in my opinion. If you are asserting that the Peshmerga did proportionally less work than the rebels, I don't disagree with you, but if you are saying there were no rebels in Iraq...
They were a regionally limited, long-oppressed local population that provided assistance concurrent with the US invasion. They did not rise up on their own, they would not have provided that assistance without the guaranteed support of boots on the ground, because, simply, they tried that already and got squashed.
Add to that, you dismiss the difference in scale - Gaddafi now faces a home-grown rebellion with an army larger than his own. 'Proportionally less work' - Who took Basra? Who took Mosul? Who took Baghdad?
Who took Benghazi? Who took Misurata and held it for three months?
2.) The US started in command and then later gave it up to NATO.
The operational commander of which is a Canadian.
4.) One, in addition to what I said before about the Operation of the Security Council and General Assembly, which I can cite if you want me to. Admittedly, this is less an assertion it is widely criticized and more an assertion that the majority of the world has not been wholly supportive nor condemned the intervention.
Did you read the Russian propaganda campaign against the Iraq war? I'm not sure what you're getting at when referring to the complaints of the BRIC block. The BRICS have a lot of political bones to pick with the West.
As to hard power, there has been more contributions from foreign powers, and proportionally the contribution of the US to Libya as opposed to Iraq is smaller. However, the US is far more than any other nation, France is in third place in terms of contributions at best. Sorry for all the Wikipedia, but it's easier than tracking down news articles.
Further, current estimates of rebel numbers are at about 17,000 rebels out of a population of six million. For comparison Kosovo, with a population of less than two million, mustered about 20,000. The only other number I know off the top of my head is the American Revolution, about 130,000 from a population of four million. So they're actually a relatively small group as far as such groups go. Once again, citations upon request.
It's not a good idea to compare pre-mechanized military numbers to post-mechanized military numbers. Do you think Gaddafi would be able to control so many people without mortars, heavy armor and artillery?
The relevant figure, of course, is that this uprising stems from Eastern Libya, about a million people, primarily in Benghazi. The revolts in Tripoli were crushed and Misurata is being evacuated. Despite this, Gaddafi's forces are still outnumbered. There were reports of as many as 30,000 protestors in Tripoli, but they are hard to verify, and rumors of mass graves being dug for them.
Upon being asked to cite my claims I have. In turn I would point out you have cited one out of four of your claims. However, except for the point about there being a rebellion in Iraq and the widespreadness of support for the Libyan intervention, I don't disagree with what you've said.
You're asking me to prove a negative - 'prove there was not a rebellion underway prior to the invasion of Iraq'. It is your responsibility, as the claimant, to prove that the rebellion was taking place before the invasion.
For clarification, do you mean from me specifically or in general?
It's your warning. I understand things get fast and loose, here, but that was bald hypocrisy on your part.