Post Gadaffi Libya - What Now?

[bigduke6]

Jaboney, what evidence do you have that the warring factions, being warlords, extremists, tribal, blond feuding etc etc etc, actually want democracy?
Have they declared this as there ultimate aim, or are they just looking to seize power for themselves?

Have they proved themselves to be any different from Gadaffi?

Don't need any evidence to that effect as they may not (likely won't) be the ones who forge a democracy.

What evidence is there that the generals/warlords/thugs in South Korea/China/Lebanon actually wanted democracy? Little to none.
And yet South Korea made the same transition as Turkey and the Philippines... as Thailand's making... as Burma's beginning to make.
The ROC made the transition after warlordism, losing a civil war, and decades of martial law.
Lebanon's been making a stumbling transition.

Democracies don't simply appear out of the air. The process of consolidation takes decades, blood, and a fair deal of economic development. Putting a cap in the last thuggish dictator's ass is only the beginning.

If I remember correctly, none of the countries you mentioned above actually had a civil war, except China. The Chinese civil war had little to do with the later economic and democratic reforms.

The problem that differentiates Libya is simple. There are hundreds of feuding tribes, warlords, islamist', secular parties, blood feuds going back thousands of years etc. Keeping them in check is the most important issue for regional stability. In fact the whole of the middle east is a different kettle of fish.

The fighting and killing in Libya will go on until the one left standing takes power, and not democratically. Then the whole shitfest will start all over again.

[Jaboney]

If I remember correctly, none of the countries you mentioned above actually had a civil war, except China. The Chinese civil war had little to do with the later economic and democratic reforms.

Your memory is faulty.

Civil wars have various effects. Sometimes they reshape society and the economy in important ways. Sometimes, they end (the worst of) the blood letting; sometimes they convince would be combattants that any halfway reasonable, peaceful deal is better than the alternative.

They're not a necessary stage leading to later reforms, just something that countries too often go through on the way to democratic government.

[bigduke6]

If I remember correctly, none of the countries you mentioned above actually had a civil war, except China. The Chinese civil war had little to do with the later economic and democratic reforms.

Your memory is faulty.

Civil wars have various effects. Sometimes they reshape society and the economy in important ways. Sometimes, they end (the worst of) the blood letting; sometimes they convince would be combattants that any halfway reasonable, peaceful deal is better than the alternative.

They're not a necessary stage leading to later reforms, just something that countries too often go through on the way to democratic government.

Possibly you could direct me to some articles specifically stating that the mentioned countries had a civil war? I have yet to find any details on the South Korean civil war, the Thai civil war and the Phillipines civil war.

As far as I know in South Korea, there was a student uprising and a later coup. These were relatively bloodless.
The coup leaders actually ended up shaping South Korea for the better, with their economic reforms. I would say it was them who were responsible for Korean democracy.

The Thai issues in 2006, were more demonstrations than anything else and were also relatively bloodless.

To call these civil wars is a bit of an overstatment, I would think. Civil disobedience might be a better choice of words.

Libya is an absolute bloodbath with no real end in sight.

[Jaboney]

Korea had its civil war. No one won.
South Korea's had political violence. Some of the generals played a very important role in later democratization... others not so much. The right ones won.

Thailand has an insurgency in the south; ample political violence when the red and yellow shirts clash. Coups. It's unfinished business.

The Philippines has local insurgencies and political violence. Coups.

Violent conflict has exacted a heavy social and economic cost on the Philippines, with over 120,000 people killed over the last three decades," Nigel Roberts, World Bank Special Representative and Director of the WDR 2011, said on Tuesday.

Burma: insurgencies; political violence.
Turkey: insurgency.
Lebanon: civil war.

Edit: Sorry, I've really got to focus and finish some work. Here's a handy link: http://countrystudies.us/

[bigduke6]

I would not call Islamic terrorism/insurgency like in the Philippines and Thailand anything close to a civil war. Neither the 2006 protests.

Turkeys massacre of Kurds is also not a civil war.

I do not believe any of these can be categorized as civil war. Neither is political violence.