HMS Vanguard wrote:Olerand wrote:If Libya isn't run as a democracy, Libya won't run for long. A new one-man regime will not survive for long, and we'll be back to square one.
Huh? It's been run that way literally as long as there's been a Libya, and was run successfully that way until we chose to destroy it, while democracy has been spreading devastation all over this region. The most successful Islamic democracy is Iran - perhaps that is the goal!And I entirely agree, our democracies will not survive the migration waves. So to prevent them, we need a strong State in Libya, and to have a strong and sustainable State in Libya, it needs to be a democracy.
To prevent them you need to sink the boats, doesn't matter what happens in Libya.
BTW, many perhaps most of those coming through Libya aren't Libyans. They are Sub-Saharans who Gaddafi previously used similar shooting-type methods to stop. So again I ask, is the Western-backed democracy going to use such methods? If not, we are fighting to defeat ourselves.
What worked in the past will no longer work now. The world of the past is no longer the one we now inhabit. We also didn't choose to destroy it, Libya destroyed itself. The uprising against Qaddafi was born and spread before the Western bombing campaign.
Tunisia is the most successful democracy.
We need to stop the boats, because we can't sink them. Libya needs to control its shoreline, and to do that, it needs a strong and stable State.
The democratic State will have coast patrol. That's the whole point. Libyan coast patrols will need to stop the boats, and so that they can do that for the long term and not the short, the State that commands them needs to be sustainable, which means it needs to be democratic.
Africa's population will quadruple in the coming century. We cannot afford having a short-term band-aid State in Libya.