Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Politics

Politics: Libyan Rebels Announce Creation of a Republic 154

Posted by timothy
from the if-you-can-keep-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A report in p2pnet.net says a 'declaration for a temporary council in the Republic of Libya' has been published. The story quotes Alive in Libya, which says Mustafa Abdul Jaleel is the president, and Abdul Hafid Abdul Qader Ghoga is the deputy president and official spokesman. No other details are given."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics: Libyan Rebels Announce Creation of a Republic

Comments Filter:
  • Irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the linux geek (799780) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:03PM (#35391498)
    A declaration by some wing of a splintered popular uprising in an African country, reported by a news source with zero credibility? Is this what Slashdot has come to? :(
    • by ScentCone (795499)

      Is this what Slashdot has come to? :(

      Strange, your user account number doesn't look like a brand new one. And you probably missed the similarly credentialed thread, earlier, about life from space.

      • by Sancho (17056) *

        Some of us remember when the vast majority of Slashdot stories were news for nerds and were either well-sourced or were the kinds of stories that didn't require sources.

    • by Majik Sheff (930627) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:17PM (#35391642) Journal

      A declaration by some wing of a splintered popular uprising in the New World? Who is this John Hancock fellow?

    • by jvillain (546827)
      When it's reported on Fox News then we will believe it.
    • by diegocg (1680514)

      Muslim/arabic countries are important. There is a reason why USA has spent a half century fighting wars there. If you don't care about what is happening it's your problem, not ours.

      • by Threni (635302)

        Aspects of the countries are important. We don't need to know about every last 20 min `popular uprising` which results in a few Twitter-related links becoming temporarily inconvenienced. Go and wave your shoes and point your little finger somewhere else.

    • by dintech (998802)

      A declaration by some wing of a splintered popular uprising in an African country, reported by a news source with zero credibility? Is this what Slashdot has come to? :(

      Why not, it works for Apple rumours which are often less than news.

      A declaration by Wing of a popular Apple blog in an Asian country, reported by a news source with zero credibility? Is this what Slashdot has come to? :(

    • by he-sk (103163)

      Relevant enough for Western countries sending out diplomats to establish relations (source [guardian.co.uk], source [dailymail.co.uk]).

    • I agree this is irrelevant, as far as nerds are concerned (so where's the !nerd tag?). Yes, it's probably monstrously important for Slashdot users as human beings that some order is being established in that country. After all, who needs another Somalia? But it should be in a news for nerds context like how to get news in/out of net-deprived $country, make a cheap sat-dish receiver, or send aid online (without getting scammed), etc. More of this and Slashdot becomes just another Digg or Reddit.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I hereby declare the room in which I reside the Republic of Bob!.... Why are you laughing at me? For legal purposes it means just as much.
    • by nthwaver (1019400)
      It'd be just about as legitimate as Gadafi's rule is.
    • Re:Republic of Bob! (Score:5, Informative)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:37PM (#35391762) Journal
      If you enjoyed substantial popular support in said room, had recently captured a variety of arms caches, and were thus far holding the military of the existing regime at bay, while said regime takes a substantial battering in world opinion, it would in fact mean just as much...

      Dirty little not-really-secret is, virtually all declarations of nationhood are legally risible. Some were legally risible and supported by armed force and resources. Others were just risible all around.
      • If it's in your possession, it's yours for as long as you can protect it.
      • by Rei (128717)

        It's very important from a practical standpoint. The more "legitimate" the uprising can present itself, the more it can come across as an alternate government, the easier it becomes to lend them military aid without coming across as an occupying power and motivating anti-American sentiment. Aka, US and other sympathetic governments recognize the government of east Libya, US allies with the government of east Libya, the government of east Libya registers a formal complaint about the occupation of western L

        • The rebels have already made some specific asks from the world at large, in fact: no-fly zone at the minimum, and air strikes against Gaddafi's military bases would be helpful. They have also specifically asked for no ground invasion, and no foreign military use of Libyan airports. In other words, they want to have the odds evened out somewhat, but not a full-scale invasion.

    • Why are you laughing at me?

      Because assuming you live in a country with an effective goverment when you try to actually go through with your declaration and stop paying taxes to the country that claims your land or declare that a warrant allowing their police to come onto your land is invalid they will come down on you like a ton of bricks and there will be NOTHING you can do about it.

      In libya OTOH a sufficiant proportion of the countries population including parts of the military has rebelled to actually stand a change of doing somet

    • by sconeu (64226)

      Petoria [wikipedia.org] has prior art.

  • I can declare that my land, in Ohio, is a free and sovereign country, apart from the USA, and all residents have unanimously elected me President. But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight. Ask the Confederate States of America how easy the process is.
    • But now the problem is to have any credibility you need to be recognized by another nation; to that end as the dictator of Free Republic of Jim I hearby do recognize the Republic of Bob as a sovereign nation.
    • Re:Not so fast... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:14PM (#35391616)
      By the same token, we could talk about the 13 colonies and the British Crown. Remember, it's only treason if you lose.
    • But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight.

      Actually, it does... since the concept of rights is based upon that which is morally justifiable, not just that which is possible. It is possible to "put up a fight" about all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make it a right. Forcing others to be a part of a government in which they have no interest can in no way be considered a right, but is a rather clear violation of individuals' right to self-determination.

      This is a technology site and all, but that really doesn't give you any excuse for s

      • But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight.

        Actually, it does... since the concept of rights is based upon that which is morally justifiable, not just that which is possible. It is possible to "put up a fight" about all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make it a right. Forcing others to be a part of a government in which they have no interest can in no way be considered a right, but is a rather clear violation of individuals' right to self-determination.

        This is a technology site and all, but that really doesn't give you any excuse for sleeping through high school civics.

        Actually, it boils down to two fundamental principles: the people's right to self-determination and the principle that the state's integrity is to be kept.

        Usually, the higher ranking principle takes precedence, but in this case, we're in a bind, since both were enumerated in the Helsinki Decalogue, as fundamental principles of the international system. If it were this alone, it would seem that all rebellions are inherently unlawful (which they are, by the host nation's laws), but according to the United Nat

    • Gadhafi has zero control or forces in the eastern half of the country. Not even mail or garbage men.

      Ohio is still run by the US.

      Eastern Libyans selected people to do mail, collect garbage, keep lights on, etc. Sure some of them are lawyers and average citizens who volunteered but they are running it like a country. They have their own army/police now as well and even a diplomat in the UN who defected. In essence Eastern Libya is becoming its own nation and will hopefully take over the rest of it as a unifie

  • The trick to this sort of thing is making it actually stick, when the guy you're dismissing as no longer in charge is still able to hand cash and other incentives to the people who are piloting the combat aircraft being used to attack you and your Rebel Scum.
  • They have support (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hajus (990255) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:06PM (#35391536)

    This group actually has backing from the local city councils that have been working to keep the local infrastructure running.

  • I really wish the U.S. was still a republic, but unfortunately the 'new deal' destroyed the republic we did have. When ya get down to barebones and read the definition from Black Law Dictionary that our judicial system uses read the definition for a republic then a democracy, the legal definition not the regular dictionary, and decide which you would rather have.
  • Freedom Fatigue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreak.eircom@net> on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:26PM (#35391698) Homepage Journal

    The amount of disparaging and dismissive comments made here, along with the generally tepid response in the West to the Libyan revolution(as well as the Arab revolutions in general) makes me feel that the West in general has no interest in democracy or freedom. Even amidst the general populace.

    Obviously the west has little to gain politically or economically from any wave of democracy in the middle east. But even ideologically, people in the west seemed to be totally uninterested in recent events in the region.

    Have we entered the age of "Meh, Freedom"? Maybe democracy, having hitched its fortunes to marketism and failed to deliver on its promises, has simply lost its lustre for westerners? Maybe the rise of China is turning people towards alternative forms of government? Maybe the west--and America in particular-- is tired of international conflicts and is entering a period of isolationism?

    I don't know what it is, but comparing interest in the Arab revolutions to the interest in the Orange and Velvet revolutions only a few years ago, I'm struck by the increase in apathy, and in some cases dismissal by people living older democracies.

    • this. sad. very sad.
    • Re:Freedom Fatigue (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:56PM (#35391902) Homepage Journal
      Well, that's an interesting perspective, but do you actually have a comment count or anything like that to back up your claims? I've been following just about every Slashdot thread on the Jasmine Revolutions since the revolt in Tunisia and so far I've witnessed, primarily, nothing but support and excitement by the Slashdot crowd. Granted, there is the typical number of cynics that keeps saying stuff like, "Yeah, protests are all fun and games until someone fire bombs you!" but I think those are primarily meant to lighten the mood and help intelligent people cope with the reality that hits them when they understand that there are still people dying for freedom in this world.

      All in all, I would say that the /. crowd has been very supportive and even eager about the prospect of freedom revolutions both in the Middle East and elsewhere. Hell, I've even noticed a few folks talking about emulating the protests in their home countries. So, I don't know where you get the idea that we are all so apathetic. Perhaps it's just a self-imposed perspective thing?
      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        That's not support. That's murmuring in a crowd, thousands of miles away: completely useless.

        "Support" is:
        * arms
        * food
        * money
        * feet on the ground
        * official recognition

        Anything other than at least two of those and you may as well not even bother.

        • by Frangible (881728)
          Arguably though, if the crowd murmurs loud enough, it's possible the leadership might decide to send in some air support, or whatever real support.

          Your average American can't supply the rebels with advanced anti-aircraft weapons or fixed wing fighter/interceptors, which is what they need. Their only (legal) power is to be a voice in a crowd arguing for it -- which typically has depressingly little effect. George W. Bush may have been the decider, but you and I are not. Charlie WIlson may have gotten FIM
    • Re:Freedom Fatigue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:07PM (#35391986) Homepage

      Maybe it's because, no matter which choices we make, we're going to get criticized by the usual suspects? This sort of thing does inspire cynicism. Let's grab a random example: PBS show on 1993 Somalia [pbs.org], "explores the well-intentioned, aborted, and ultimately tragic American effort to bring about stability and stop starvation." PBS show in 1994 Rwanda [pbs.org], "how the West ignored warnings of the 1994 Rwanda genocide and turned its back on the victims."

      It's the Kobayashi Maru - the no-win situation. And there's no reprogramming the computers this time. Is it any surprise that there is a lack of enthusiasm? You're bitching that we aren't doing anything, but the minute the first US Marine sets foot in Libya you'll change your tune to IMPERIALISM USA FASCISTS OIL HALLIBURTON EARTHQUAKE MACHINE 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB WHARRRGARBL

      • by toastar (573882)
        perhaps we can do something without putting boots on the ground, Maybe a no fly zone?
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Stop being naive. You can't do a "no-fly" zone without taking out the sam-sites and possibly the airports and at that maybe not just military airports. That doesn't mean firing the air controllers it means bombing the place. Gates recently said: make no mistake about it, a no fly zone in Libya would be a military operation. That means munitions fired and people killed. If that's the case does it really matter as far as allegations of imperialism and oil interests go whether or not we actually set foot in th

          • by Frangible (881728)
            I remember Gates once said something to the effect of "the American people elected the president, not me, so I am obligated to serve the people by serving the president". This was when pressed on why he had done a flip-flop on many issues such as the F-22 and Don't-ask-don't-tell when Obama was elected. While I'm sure he gives Obama an earful behind closed doors, he will never disagree with Obama publicly.

            So I wonder to what degree that is true; the only AA systems I've seen from Libya have been ZPUs wh
        • and then we paint the rebels as american pawns. that we planned it from the beginning to get our hands on libyan oil. which is of course absurd. and which the majority of people in the middle east and europe and the usa will come to believe nonetheless

          the truth is, if the usa gets involved, people will be howling criticism. if the usa doesn't get involved, people will be howling criticism

          the lesson is that armchair foreign analysis is easy and cheap and 99% of people's opinions suck

      • the minute the first US Marine sets foot in Libya you'll change your tune to IMPERIALISM USA FASCISTS OIL HALLIBURTON EARTHQUAKE MACHINE 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB WHARRRGARBL

        This is already the case. I've heard a lot of that coming out of some of my acquaintances in Russia - they're convinced that the entire wave in Middle East is American undercover job. No-one can coherently explain why, though, as usual, this mostly gets "explained" as "economic interests".

        • by Frangible (881728)
          Can you blame them? We've been serious dicks to the Russians, from *publicly lying* about the Georgia / South Ossetia conflict (in actuality, Russia was not the aggressor, nor at fault) to the "Iranian" missile defense in Europe, and other assorted cold-war type stunts. The Russian people are pretty bitter, even about their own government and the oligarchies/corruption. I've read Izvestia and Russian comment threads periodically, and while they certainly criticize US/NATO over stuff like the above, they
          • I don't think the Russians as a whole have any sort of wide-ranging anti-American bias or conspiracy, it's just that we keep kicking them in the nuts so they point the finger back at us.

            There is a fair bit of both. There's no particular reason for your average Russian to love US, but the bias definitely goes into conspiracy theory territory.

            The thing you have to understand is that there was a lot of anti-American propaganda during the Cold War, and its effects didn't go away overnight; especially in people weren't particularly happy about rapid liberalization, or some of those who were but were disappointed shortly after. A typical example of that, which is still used to this very day (and

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          I've heard a lot of that coming out of some of my acquaintances in Russia - they're convinced that the entire wave in Middle East is American undercover job.

          Russia has been dicking around with Middle Eastern politics by supplying arms to select groups since time immemorial. I suspect they're probably RIGHT, but that they only know because THEIR attempts to control the entire middle east have failed miserably.

      • Yeah, we may want to do something, but realize the practical problems with many of the things we could do. hence some people put their hands up, metaphorically speaking, but not out of apathy.

    • by AnonGCB (1398517)

      Democracy is more free than the government they were under before, but it's certainly not free.

    • by echucker (570962)
      I'm in the West and interested, but I don't want my government involved. Why? Because we always screw it up! Way too many lives and way too much money have already been spent trying to make people "free" by our standards, and without a whole lot to show for it.
    • by jregel (39009)

      I don't know where you're posting from, but in the UK, the protests in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya were/are running as lead items on the main TV news. It's major news and being treated in the same way the Orange and Velvet revolutions were.

      • by Frangible (881728)
        It's front-page news here in "the colonies" as well. Though the Orange and Velvet revolutions, not so much.
    • I support the Arab people.

      To me it is hypocritical for the US to stand for freedom and then turn around and be agaisn't the protestors because of what happened in Iran *might* happen elsewhere.

      I believe through elections and freedom the muslim part of the world will modernize and integrate more with the west. They will realize they no longer have to be victim to extremists. I believe this will be the biggest blow to Al-Quada as many poor Arabs no longer feel strapping a bomb to themselves for a cruel organi

      • by cdrguru (88047)

        Turkey has been fighting off (sometimes violently) those that want to take the country into a Muslim theocracy for the last 50+ years. Egypt has been battling the same sort of forces for about as long.

        While it might be nice to think about a modern Muslim state, it is very unlikely. Iran isn't a very good model because the country was split between the 12th and the 20th centuries when the Shah was in power. Many other Arab states are similarly divided where the rural areas are extremely primative and the

        • Nobody really thought that the Russian revolution would end up with the Reds winning the day and suppressing everything else with great fervor.

          The October Revolution was entirely driven by the "reds", which is to say, a coalition of the more radical statist socialist parties. And it wasn't all that surprising when Bolsheviks kicked everyone else out - they always had the support of the majority of city dwellers (i.e. workers and soldiers rather than peasants), and even before the revolution the then-underground structure of local councils was dominated by them; consequently, they also had people more willing and better prepared to fight.

          If you mea

        • by Frangible (881728)
          I don't think you can really compare European revolutions to middle eastern/african ones. The latter have generally weaker centralized government and more tribal and ethnic factions. Also, initially in Russia under Lenin and the Bolsheviks, things did improved vs. the Czar for people, but once Stalin took power and started killing everyone it kind of went down the tubes.

          If you look at other African revolutions, sometimes they work out (South Africa, Mozambique) and other times they do not (Zimbabwe).
    • The various uprisings in North Africa has been top headline news in Sweden for the past several months, and people I talk to are generally interested in what's going on. Even the US appears to be more interested in this than what's going on in their own backyard (Wisconsin) and will have reprecussions for generations to come which seems very unusual for Americans..

    • by mdozturk (973065)
      Americans who supported the Iraq war because we were bring freedom to Iraq should be very happy. Bringing democracy to Iraq cost us about 700 billion $$s. Were getting democracies in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, etc are coming for free!
    • by gmhowell (26755)

      Because some of us in the West understand that the Wilsonian approach to international involvement doesn't work.

    • If -we- can't live in a free and open democracy then why should they get too? Voter apathy doesn't just apply to elections but to the entire democratic process. In a world where the government can lie, cheat, fix elections and spy on people in direct violation of that countries most basic laws (and nobody cares) why would they care about a bunch of foreigners choosing to live in a free democracy.
      • by Frangible (881728)
        There is no such thing as a "free and open" democracy. Hell, there's no such thing as a democracy either... just republics. As the knife throwing bald dude in Lost wrote, man in his natural state is completely free, but freedom of choice is always sacrificed as man forms societies. The most densely populated regions and countries see the most invasive and restrictive governments typically, while lower population densities confer typically more freedom of choice, as you're butting heads with less people.
    • The amount of disparaging and dismissive comments made here, along with the generally tepid response in the West to the Libyan revolution(as well as the Arab revolutions in general) makes me feel that the West in general has no interest in democracy or freedom.

      General elections in Tunisia have been essentially suspended indefinitely. Egypt is in the hands of a military junta whose leader is a known supporter of the status quo ante. Libya hangs in the balance and anything could happen yet.

      What demo

    • I think it's because we don't know what the outcome will be. No one does. Will they end up with another dictator, even more cruel? Will they end up a republic of religious fanatics, a breeding ground of terrorists? There isn't a clear democratic movement here, it's just a movement of people against their government. We've intervened in the past in countries without clear movements, and it often ended badly.

      If it were an obvious case of a people rising up against their government and demanding democracy, w
    • I think that a lot of people in the /. crowd care. For those that don't, it's more of the "We have it, so we don't quite care if others do or don't." Look at how people in Massachusetts have universal healthcare, but then elected a senator Scott Brown who voted to deny the same system to the rest of the country. People who had healthcare didn't seem to care about those who didn't, since they were satisfied themselves.

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      Maybe democracy, having hitched its fortunes to marketism and failed to deliver on its promises, has simply lost its lustre for westerners?

      Maybe we, as Americans, are simply tired of going to fight wars on the behalf of others' freedoms - particularly on account of the current state of our rapidly eroding freedoms and continued/increased disdain from the Very Elect towards We The People? At this point, we've realized that the world as a whole is fairly unappreciative of assistance in such regard, even if it's impossible otherwise. Not every international relationship can be like that of the US and France.

      Western Europe lost the plot some time

  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:37PM (#35391760) Homepage

    It's more than a coup attempt, but less than a revolution. The rebels claim a port city, there's some fighting near the capital. Some army units are supporting the rebellion. This is the normal form of regime change in some countries. The people at the top change, but the whole government isn't replaced.

    The announced head of the new government is a former justice minister. He seems to be the compromise choice of several factions, which is a good sign. Interestingly, this seems to be a secular rebellion. The leadership isn't talking about establishing an Islamic state.

  • Republic, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:38PM (#35391768) Homepage
    Well, I must have missed where they held elections. Anyway, since the link is a typical Slashdot non-story, let's talk about Harvard university professors supporting Khadaffy instead [boston.com]. Nicholas Negroponte from OLPC accepted his money and is proud of his participation. The really outrageous detail is that these professors were complicit in the award of a fraudulent PhD. For that they should have their tenure revoked and their academic positions removed. Of course, this won't happen. If a buffoon like me showed up to protest Haah-vahd, I'd be laughed out of the discussion due to my lack of a doctorate, and even if I did have one, my Ph.D would be mocked as the award of an inferior school. Khadaffy's son Saif is hardly the first to have his Ph.D thesis written for him. Unfortunately this is a perfect example of the principles (or lack thereof) of the cultured, intellectual elite who are convinced that they should be in charge of America. That they are reprehensible scalawags who are for sale to a tyrant will never be accepted. It would be like a socialist accepting that her ideology resulted in the deaths of millions of 20th century humans. The consequences are just too much to bear thinking about.
    • Re:Republic, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by francium de neobie (590783) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:17PM (#35392088)
      Ok, let's say you're doing some kind of charity project like the OLPC, and you seriously need money to move your project forward, and you're just a MIT professor who'd been minding his research, and published a few books, for over 40 years.

      And Qadaffi, a leader of some African country which just happens to be in your target market, donates money to you so you can move your project forward. You've never been a diplomat so you don't really know what Qadaffi has been up to, but it's good money and probably some goodwill with a non-small African country. All you know is you can use that money to help a bunch of poor kids in Africa.

      Now, who wouldn't accept that money?! Seriously, get a grip. An MIT professor isn't some kind of all-knowing god.
      • by cnettel (836611)
        Nicholas Negroponte could have asked his brother just what kind of guy this Khadaffi person might be. But, yeah, you might have to choose less than ideal friends anyway. Stating that a person trying to make a global change in the way primary education is carried out can very well be ignorant of basic international politics is madness. Stating, on the other hand, that you don't always get to choose your partners is another thing, that might also cause a backlash for your cause, e.g. (hypothetically) if the g
        • by Frangible (881728)
          Who was Khadaffi when he was sold the OLPCs? He was the leader of Libya, a country which we had restored ties to, was relatively prosperous for an African nation and had perhaps the best women's rights, and was being increasingly seen in a positive light.

          And that's probably what his "brother" would have said... unless his brother was Skynet and sent this new information back in time.
      • You've never been a diplomat so you don't really know what Qadaffi has been up to

        You don't need to be a diplomat - all you need is roughly 5th grade reading skills and 4th grade googling skills. I.E. pretty much anyone of normal intelligence and curiosity is more than capable of finding out what Qadaffi has been up to.

        Now, who wouldn't accept that money?!

        Anyone with a shred of ethics.

        Seriously, get a grip. An MIT professor isn't some kind of all-knowing god.

        Right back at you. He doesn't ne

        • by Frangible (881728)
          Too bad Khadaffi was seen as a good guy at the time, with his worst fault being his busty Ukranian nurses he had follow him around everywhere. All of this stuff occurred after the fact. For all I know, you could become the worst serial killer in America in the future. Should no one sell you anything today? Apparently not, if they have a "shred of ethics, normal intelligence, and normal curiosity", which is apparently your way of saying, "can MAGICALLY see the FUTURE!" How does that work? Magnets?
    • by Asic Eng (193332)

      "Nicholas Negroponte from OLPC accepted his money and is proud of his participation."

      So what are you suggesting - nobody can interact with any of Africa's corrupt or dictatorial leadership, instead we just wait until they've all established well-run democracies? What the hell would the benefit of that policy be?

      • Isn't it "the narrative" that the West should stay the fuck out of Africa's internal affairs? Haven't we meddled enough? If it were an oil company instead of elite academics, it would be criticized for enabling a dictatorship. Self-serving comment, interpreted to give the best light to its beneficiary.
        • by takowl (905807)
          Well, there's an important difference. An oil company would bribe dictators to let them make more money by extracting the country's resources. A non-profit organisation producing educational equipment takes their money and supplies educational equipment. I suppose it's possible that the dictator hands out the laptops only to his supporters, but it's hard to really see OLPC as somehow propping up a dictator.
      • by gmhowell (26755)

        What the hell would the benefit of intervention be? So that people could complain about the West 'interfering in our affairs'? Gimme a break.

    • by seyyah (986027)

      Well, I must have missed where they held elections.

      Republic doesn't mean democracy. Republics do NOT need to have elections.

    • by Frangible (881728)
      And yet, information technology has played a key role in all of these revolutions. Kaddhafi buying OLPCs doesn't make the people who created them shameless whores or even mean that he gains an advantage from them. Technology and communications have thus far had the opposite effect.

      And, as bad as Khaddhafi is, he's basically Charlie Sheen running a country; I bet you'd be more than happy to make a profit off Charlie Sheen your old laptop.. He wasn't really public enemy number one when they were sold, and
  • by seyyah (986027) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:47PM (#35392378)

    Libya is already known as the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Republic" or in short the "Libyan Arab Republic".

    • So is North Korea. Your point?

    • Not really. The official term is "jamahiriyya", and it is deliberately distinct from the normal Arabic "jumhuriyya", which actually means Republic. Gaddafi has always claimed that traditional representative republics are deeply flawed, and that his "third theory" of political and social organization is far superior, hence the new word to describe it.

    • by dido (9125)

      The difference between a Republic and a People's Republic is a lot like the difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.

An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"

Working...