Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Rebels in Libya claim they have evidence that Col Gaddafi has also received assistance from mercenaries or supporters originating from countries as diverse as Algeria, Belarus and Chad.

Fuck it that's another three countries off my vacation list!

Milton Friedman?...wasn't he the champion of the free market economy?

Well it might have worked had it not been for one simple human trait.."greed".

Still never mind Milton wasn't around to experience that complete fuck up, if he had been he might have had to admit his ideas and theories were a tad flawed.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Yeah -Funny how Americans praise a complete moron.

Even funnier how the elect them.

Originally Posted by OhOh

"David Cameron is facing demands for a recall of Parliament amid claims Britain is now pursuing an overt policy of "regime change" in Libya.

Senior Conservative and Labour MPs said the Government has gone beyond the mandate given in last month's Commons vote to protect civilians.

The calls followed the publication of a joint newspaper article by Mr Cameron, US President Barack Obama and French leader Nicolas Sarkozy saying it would be an "unconscionable betrayal" if dictator Muammar Gaddafi is allowed to remain in power."

finally some good news, maybe that would be the fall of the Cameron government. Let's hope that and not make the same mistake as they did for Blair by giving him unjustified extension.

so if I have this right Butters , Gaddafi stays and Cameron and co go is your preferred outcome ?

Originally Posted by Mid

Gaddafi stays and Cameron and co go is your preferred outcome ?

yes, that's the only logic outcome. Will probably be lost on you since you are used to happy ending ala American.

Doesn't mean that Gaddafi deserve to be alive, just that he is needed more than Cameron.

thanxs for removing any remaining doubt I may have had .

You Sir are certifiable .

Unfortunately for the US/UK alliance there doesnt seem to much of a "coalition of the willing" to over ride the UN limits this time like there was for the Iraq invasion. The French are eager to go, but Obama is up to his neck in debt from USAs current batch of wars and is looking to back out of the conflict as much as possible.

If Cameron wants to go beyond the UN resolution 1973 he really should consult parliament and request permission before he extends the boundaries of his authority through "mission creep".

Originally Posted by Panda

If Cameron wants to go beyond the UN resolution 1973 he really should consult parliament and request permission before he extends the boundaries of his authority through "mission creep".

he is going to make Tony Blair looks good,

at last, redemption for Tony

Originally Posted by Panda

Libya's military has fired cluster munitions into residential areas as it battles rebels for control of the western city of Misratah, a human rights group says.

That's not cricket is it?

Still what's to be expected, is anyone surprised?

Kept a mad dog off it's leash for years now when it starts to bite, everyone cries "foul", take the recent modern history of Libya, the West didn't finish the job when they bombed them back in 1986, anyone see any similarities to Iraq 1991?

When if ever are the politicians going to accept and understand..that war isn't pleasant nor is it a game for them to play with, you start one you have to finish it swiftly and using the latest weapons. Not nice I know and probably offends the liboturds of the world but it's a fact of war not life.

History has shown us politicians have repeatedly interfered with their military command, ignored their advice and the end result is our soldiers have to keep going back to half finish the same job over and over again.

Might have been easier and more efficient to shoot Gadaffi years ago? New broom and all that!

Watch the West make a big deal out of the cluster bomb issue (it's headline on BBC site right now) - but no one batted an eye in the West when Thailand used them against Cambodia last week. More double standards. Did HRW take any notice?

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

History has shown us politicians have repeatedly interfered with their military command, ignored their advice and the end result is our soldiers have to keep going back to half finish the same job over and over again.

How true that is, and this time is a "here we go again" scenario. All the political leaders individually and collectively can't get the balls up to do it properly. The UN can no tbe persuaded to do anything properly, so we send in various air forces to "protect civilians" but pretend that we don't really intend to change the Libyan leadership. We "call on" the Colonel to step down, knowing perfectly well that he will not do anything of the sort, and at the same time expect air force pilots to somehow force him to go. (with one hand tied behind their backs)


Any military commander above the rank of Corporal knows perfectly well that air power can not win territory; nor can it hold territory. They also must know that the rag-tag collection of rebels have little or no chance of winning against trained and well armed soldiers, without serious ground intervention.

All the air forces can do is degrade the Libyan forces ability to fight; as much as possible, and provide air cover and support for friendly forces on the ground. They are in constant danger of making mistakes and hitting wrong targets; giving big propaganda opportunities to the dictator and his "supporters".

If on the other hand a full scale air campaign had been followed up very quickly with a land invasion to establish a bridgehead inside Libya.....heavy weapons and a rapid advance could have been brought to bear, and the Libyan army would be hightailing it along with their leaders. There would probably be far fewer casualties overall and a peacekeeping force could be installed until the liberated Libya sorts itself out. That of course would be "illegal" How fucking ridiculous... allow things that don't work to be "legal" but keeping what does work "illegal" How very typical of the UN....the worlds most expensive debating club. They were still debating Rwanda when three quarters of a million people were being butchered and their own military commander on the ground was pleading for help....I suppose a rapid military intervention would have been "illegal"..and we can't have that, can we?....

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Watch the West make a big deal out of the cluster bomb issue (it's headline on BBC site right now) - but no one batted an eye in the West when Thailand used them against Cambodia last week. More double standards. Did HRW take any notice?

Maybe oil has some influence on whether the West cares to bat it's eyes or not? Surely TS you're not implying that Western politicians have double standards?

I agree with norton, it's now "a rock and a hard place" and it's deservedly so!

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by Panda

Libya's military has fired cluster munitions into residential areas as it battles rebels for control of the western city of Misratah, a human rights group says.

That's not cricket is it?

Still what's to be expected, is anyone surprised?

Kept a mad dog off it's leash for years now when it starts to bite, everyone cries "foul", take the recent modern history of Libya, the West didn't finish the job when they bombed them back in 1986, anyone see any similarities to Iraq 1991?

When if ever are the politicians going to accept and understand..that war isn't pleasant nor is it a game for them to play with, you start one you have to finish it swiftly and using the latest weapons. Not nice I know and probably offends the liboturds of the world but it's a fact of war not life.

History has shown us politicians have repeatedly interfered with their military command, ignored their advice and the end result is our soldiers have to keep going back to half finish the same job over and over again.

Might have been easier and more efficient to shoot Gadaffi years ago? New broom and all that!

Firstly, I dont know why my name appears on your above quote?

Secondly, this is NOT a war. No war has been declared by anybody. Its UN Security Council Resolution 1973 being enforced by UN member nations.

The US led invasion of Iraq was a "war" since it was never endorsed by the UN Security Council, --- even though it was never a declared war and was illegal under the US constitution for the President alone to authorize such action without the approval of congress.

Western leaders like Cameron are now seeking to emulate GWBs contempt for democracy by leading their country into actual war by virtue of "mission creep" without permission from parliament. "Mission Creep" being when a country steps outside the rules laid down in the UN Security Council resolution in order to achieve their preferred outcome. If a country wants to do that then its WAR! But international rules of war dictate that it should be a declared war, NOT some kind of a semi-war under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution.

If Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama want to go to war against Gaddafi, then they should first get permission from their democratic government.

Its a very dangerous precedent to allow individual national leaders to draw a country into war when there is no immediate national threat. It goes against the principles of democracy and gives our leaders the powers of a dictator.

it's basically game over,

Originally Posted by Panda

Unfortunately for the US/UK alliance there doesnt seem to much of a "coalition of the willing" to over ride the UN limits this time like there was for the Iraq invasion. The French are eager to go, but Obama is up to his neck in debt from USAs current batch of wars and is looking to back out of the conflict as much as possible.

For once yes the French are eager to go and they have good reason to be eager as we all know, one thing about the French is they won't get of their arses and do anything unless it's firmly in their own interests.

However Nato as usual is making committe decisions that cannot possibly suit all of the nations / politicians all of the time. (same old story, committee decison making = squabble, squabble, sqabble).

Rule by committee and nobody reaches any firm or any clear decision and now the current situation is confused, more difficult and might just escalate like others have in the past.

I see one answer to this problem..Europe evacuates all the rebels puts them on social and they all live happy ever after eating Escago and chips! Something similar to Castro encouraging his "fine upstanding citizens" to go to the US and integrate (integrate into crime that is).

The difference is our tossers in Western politics have encouraged rebels to put their lives on the line only to desert them and hang em out to dry, it's not new it's been done before so any one think that's honourable or a good reason to fight for your country nowadays?

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

The difference is our tossers in Western politics have encouraged rebels to put their lives on the line only to desert them and hang em out to dry, it's not new it's been done before so any one think that's honourable or a good reason to fight for your country nowadays?

Yes our governments picked a side that looked like a winner. But they jumped too early as history will attest. Now its looking like a quagmire and how to assist our side in gaining victory?

Gaddafi was making overtures to the Russians and Chinese re oil contracts. Could explain the wests eagerness to replace Gaddafi with a more compliant government?

Libya is all about logistics now | Abdel Bari Atwan | Comment is free | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Panda

Firstly, I dont know why my name appears on your above quote?

Are you saying you didn't originally post that quote, if not I'm not sure why it's acredited to you as I haven't edited anything just quoted it as normal! You sure you're not on something panda?

Originally Posted by Panda

Secondly, this is NOT a war. No war has been declared by anybody. Its UN Security Council Resolution 1973 being enforced by UN member nations.

Splitting hairs panda

Originally Posted by Panda

The US led invasion of Iraq was a "war" since it was never endorsed by the UN Security Council, --- even though it was never a declared war and was illegal under the US constitution for the President alone to authorize such action without the approval of congress.

That's US politics for you...and I didn't vote for your President.

Originally Posted by Panda

If a country wants to do that then its WAR! But international rules of war dictate that it should be a declared war, NOT some kind of a semi-war under the guise of a UN Security Council resolution.

Contradiction panda you said it wasn't a war and what the fuck is a "semi-war" let me know what you're taking?

Originally Posted by Panda

Its a very dangerous precedent to allow individual national leaders to draw a country into war when there is no immediate national threat. It goes against the principles of democracy and gives our leaders the powers of a dictator.

That's the only thing you've posted so far that makes sense and I'll agree with you.

Finally, do they call you panda because your eye-shadow get messed up when you whinge and cry? Get over it..politics is a dirty business full of lies and crooked politicians but it's the sytem we have and at the moment it's all we have.

The worlds running short on natural resources and face it matters are going to get worse not better. Accept that and live with it, we've all lived through the time of pleny and now like "wanker gribbs" says it's time for another famine. It's a fact of life that idiots like gribbs (and others) keep repeating history and blaming our ancestors for our current problems, the fact is humans don't learn by their mistakes and neither are they infallible.

In the meantime I'm going to eat my Larb Moo Pissette.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Panda

If Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama want to go to war against Gaddafi, then they should first get permission from their democratic government.

Its a very dangerous precedent to allow individual national leaders to draw a country into war when there is no immediate national threat. It goes against the principles of democracy and gives our leaders the powers of a dictator.

I have absolutely no issue with removing Qadaffi from power, but I have to agree with this. They need to broaden the mandate, via the usual Parliamentary process.

Q has been reduced to employing foreign mercenaries, like Farc & various black African nationalities, to keep himself installed- and at considerable cost. Of course, two can play at that game- it's a thought to send in initial ground level military assistance from mercenaries rather than sovereign armies. But it should require a broader mandate.

I don't see any case to allow Q to stay in power now, beyond cowardice. Apart from the obvious human rights violations against his own people, and the fact that the uprising against him encompasses most of the country outside of the Tripoli region, there is also his track record of being a first class 'thorn in the side'- Lockerbie, the IRA, I believe he funds Farc to this day, many other examples too. He is our avowed enemy, plain and simple, and with the assistance of his people, well gotten rid of. You can comfortably expect him to continue being the worlds largest funder of anti-western terrorism, and quite likely broaden his mandate against some unfriendly Arab leaders too, if he isn't.

China & Russia's howls from the peanut gallery are of course assured, because they don't want more oil falling under 'western friendly' regimes in the great game, plus of course Q's status as an ongoing funder of anti-western terrorist causes and atrocities suites them fine. Keeps the heat off them. But from where we sit, I just don't think we can afford his regime to survive.

Sabang, I agree with you. Gadaffie through his control of Libyas oil is a threat to wesrern interests in the way he is playing off Russia and China against the west.
For that reason alone he is being and will be removed. Nothing to do with democracy or a humanitarian crisis. If the west had stayed out of it, the rebels would have been well defeated and the eastern towns would not be under siege. Granted, there probably would have been a lot of killing and reprisals, but not as much as in this slow drawn out civil war the west is now half heartedly supporting.

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

In the meantime I'm going to eat my Larb Moo Pissette.

Best you do that Rodders old boy.
Probably the most intellectually challenging thing you are likely to do all day.

Originally Posted by Panda

Gadaffie through his control of Libyas oil is a threat to wesrern interests in the way he is playing off Russia and China against the west.

85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe, or had done until recently.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Panda

Gadaffie through his control of Libyas oil is a threat to wesrern interests in the way he is playing off Russia and China against the west.

85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe, or had done until recently.

Well if the conspiracy theorists are right, Ireland, Italy and Austria should be leading the charge.....