Jaboney wrote:Don't need any evidence to that effect as they may not (likely won't) be the ones who forge a democracy.bigduke6 wrote: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?
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.