Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Carrabow

That was my point

And my point was that Bfly's puerile witticisms depend on oversimplification, as you pointed out.

it's hardly oversimplification, the facts speak for themselves

NATO can't deploy a full conflict, that's the problem, and because of it they will keep bombing innocent civilians and rebels without distinction, and with no exit or end result in sight

a complete futile exercise,

Wishful thinking there methinks Butters.

NATO will slowly grind down Gaddafi's heavy weapons in the forward area, and indeed there may be some very isolated instances of civilians and allied rebels being killed. But it is certainly not indiscriminate bombing as you purport.

With Gaddafi's supply lines cut by NATO air strikes in the Eastern cities the disorganized rebels will slowly eradicate them. But thats going to leave the country divided into East and west, isolating Gaddafi from the bulk of his oil reserves. This thing could drag on for years or even decades. USA was wise to flick the cost of guarding the oil to the Europeans. I guess they have at least learned something from Iraq. A new state created under democratic principles may not be as compliant to western needs as one under a compliant dictator.

But yea, you are right that this thing is headed to be a big shitty mess for a long time unless Gaddafi and his team do a runner and bail out to live a life of luxury in some far off land. And that scenario seems most unlikely.

In a round about way Africa belongs to Europe, if the Americans went any further than they did the international community would blow a head gasket. I am surprised we did is much as we have so far.

I would like to see how NATO especially France handles this. It is about time someone else gets to be the punching bag. North Africa is a mess no matter where you look, excellent track record. I will say one thing for them. They are consistent.

Originally Posted by Carrabow

North Africa is a mess no matter where you look, excellent track record. I will say one thing for them. They are consistent.

Yes N. Africa and ME have been doing wonders lately. Tunisia managed to off load their dictator. The peop0le were unhappy because they had no jobs and no freedom. They still have no jobs and no freedom...so they are all heading for Italy in small boats. Italy will be delighted to welcome them and all their Sub-Saharan kin I'm sure. I mean Italy has no problems to worry about...and jobs for goat herders are begging to be filled everywhere.

Egypt had a big uprising against their dictator. The army was quite accommodating to the protesters and the dictator had the good sense to step down. Now they are protesting against the army and the replacement dictator plus the army is getting pissed off. Could get very ugly if the army decides it likes being the government after all. Yessir N. Africa is the place to be these days.

Libya has a popular uprising against their dictator who is clearly a bit of a hard ass and did not step down; in fact swore to "die in Libya" Instead he sent his troops over to Benghazi to "show no mercy" (He seems to be having some serious staffing problems with all his top guys heading for London or anywhere else they can get a deal...good and reliable help is hard to find sometimes)

A loose and quickly formed coalition of France, UK, US attacks said troops to prevent a big shootout with potential for mass casualties... NATO has to take over because the US is pissed off doing everything and paying for everything.....Butterfly gets pissed off..and a few others who are totally convinced that all NATO military personnel are trained to target and kill innocent civilians only. NATO does not care about Butterfly and friends....nor does anyone else actually.

Meanwhile over in Bahrain people are out in the street making noise about free elections, democracy and nonsense like that. The King is pissed off. Security forces are being a bit inept at controlling things and ask that well established bastion of democracy Saudi Arabia for a bit of help. SA sends over a few troops with APC's. Things are a bit tense but no really large scale confrontations as yet. Bahrain is a small room in a big house. Anyway I'm sure the people in Bahrain are just doing it because uprisings are a new fashion this year.....If those dumb fucks in Tunisia can have one...so can we. Down with the King.......

Yemen has a bit of bother too. Their dictator has agreed to step down,but not until he has time to loot the treasury. The crowd keep pushing for change and shots are fired. That's what any self respecting dictator does.

The situation is clearly tense but no really mass confrontations like Libya...at least so far. I have some fond memories of Yemen....dirty, lying, back stabbing cutthroats...fuck em....let them cut each other to pieces...another small room in the big house.

Syria... holy shit, yet another dictator having problems with his minions. Riots; demands for more freedom; real bad stuff for your average dictator. Shots fired, quite a few people killed...but relatively small scale stuff again.
Funny how so many people in these countries want to be so much more like us..and have elected governments to complain about instead of un-elected governments that they get shot for complaining about.

Actually; even Saudi Arabia had some protests.... small scale stuff...which the King bought off with $30 billion+ of cash to spread around...Now we're talking....Thaksinomics at work... Can you imagine Saudi Arabia as a democracy....yea right.

As for USA and the NATO alliance ...we may get around to doing some house cleaning in due course, but you really need to clean one room at a time....so you start with the one that needs the most urgent attention...and hopefully get around to the others when time and available resources allow.

All in all, its just become a really bad season for dictators....but for those that are trying to overthrow them...it's really not much better.....at least not yet.

[quote=OhOh;1728323]

Originally Posted by koman

If you were actually lift your head and see the attitude of the majority of people actually adding to this thread, and others in other media outlets, you would find that the consensus is that this is an illegal and immoral war.

I dont think that is true at all.

we could question the moral part by saying they are turning a blind eye on the other protesters being slaughtered by their oil friends

it's definitely illegal, wait until they start the invasion, then it will become obvious

Originally Posted by Butterfly

we could question the moral part by saying they are turning a blind eye on the other protesters being slaughtered by their oil friends

it's definitely illegal, wait until they start the invasion, then it will become obvious

Is it "definitely illegal" as you say, or is it potentially illegal if they send in ground troops?

^ well they lied to the UN security council about the true motives, so that basically render the resolution void

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ well they lied to the UN security council about the true motives, so that basically render the resolution void

Disagree there.
A "motive" can not make an act illegal. Only the act itself can be illegal.

Originally Posted by Panda

A "motive" can not make an act illegal. Only the act itself can be illegal.

WTF ??? the motives is what defines the act in the first place,

if they change the motives, then the act is not covered in their resolution

refer to the Iraq resolution if you are confused,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ well they lied to the UN security council about the true motives, so that basically render the resolution void

They lied about the true motive?....all 28 members of NATO (who as a rule can't agree on anything) all came on board...plus 6 non member states. In all there were 40 nations represented at the London conference...plus the UN, Arab League and African Union. No concerns about " illegal" actions from any of them.

Gadaffi "called" for a ceasefire....but did not actually cease firing......now when you call for a ceasefire you are supposed to stop firing....maybe ya all missed that detail. If he had ceased firing and made any attempt to deal with the situation other than brute force, his military assets would not have been attacked....and anyway, why would we bomb Libya just to get oil? We were getting oil just fine before...and Gadaffi was "compliant" so why would be be supporting his opponents if it was just about oil.

It would probably have been much more efficient and effective if the original coalition had continued, but the US wants to sit this one out....as much as they are allowed to sit it out. NATO was never really structured for this kind of action, but under the circumstances they will have to do.

UN 1973 authorized the establishment of a no fly zone and the use of all means necessary to protect the civilian population---
You can put whatever spin you like on that....but how would any UN member state or states implement a no fly zone and protect the population without some kind of military intervention ??.........does anyone actually think the UN did not expect or intend that military action would be taken, and that such action was bound to result in some civilian casualties? The rebels are "civilians"and the Libyan army sees fit to place military assets in areas where civilians are providing shielding. It's pretty SOP in ME conflicts.

But of course there is this grand plan amongst all those dastardly countries like Norway, Canada (big oil producers with no particular interest in Libya) Denmark,...even Sweden FFS ...34 countries are now involved in actions against Gadaffi's forces. Collectively they represent a good part of the civilized world....acting against a small part of a seriously uncivilized world.

If you feel it necessary to constantly rail against this collection of countries in favor of a demented dictator who has committed numerous crimes against the civilized world and his own population...fine, but I wonder why anyone would do that...other than through a twisted, vitriolic hatred of all things western....which certainly exists in some individuals for reasons known only to themselves.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Panda

A "motive" can not make an act illegal. Only the act itself can be illegal.

WTF ??? the motives is what defines the act in the first place,

if they change the motives, then the act is not covered in their resolution

refer to the Iraq resolution if you are confused,

No confusion here at all. The motive put forward to the UN security Council was to prevent the murder of civilians by troops by means of imposing a no-fly zone and any other means deemed necessary. All perfectly legitimate and morally correct IMHO.
That however does not make the hidden agenda (call it motive) of regime change morally right or legitimate under UN resolution 1973.

Security Council Approves


We do agree that there was/is an ulterior motive indeed.

If NATO steps outside the well defined UN guidelines under resolution 1973, then that act or acts would be illegal.

Merely having a motive to comit an act is not illegal. It is the carrying out of an act against the law that is illegal.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Gadhafi approves plan to stop fighting, allow peacekeepers - CNN.com

Gadhafi approves plan to stop fighting, allow peacekeepers

By the CNN Wire Staff
April 11, 2011 -- Updated 0530 GMT (1330 HKT)


Libya opposition retakes eastern city

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gadhafi OKs deal for cease-fire, political transition and international peacekeepers
• A memo, issued by Libya's government and the African Union, spells out the deal
• African Union mediators are now heading to Benghazi to talk with opposition leaders
• Fighting continued elsewhere Sunday, with rebels recapturing Ajdabiya

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has agreed in principle to stop all hostilities in his North African nation and let in outside forces to help keep the peace, his government and African Union mediators said Monday in a joint statement.

Ramtane Lamara, the African group's commissioner for peace and security, read off the agreement early Monday, flanked by Libyan government spokesman Musa Ibrahim.

The African Union team plans to travel to Benghazi to meet with leaders of the movement dedicated to ousting Gadhafi, who has ruled Libya for 42 years.

Gadhafi's government previously has announced unilateral cease-fires -- only to continue to attack the opposition. Those fighting to oust Libya's longtime ruler have voiced opposition to proposals, saying their main goal is to assure the departure of the longtime leader.

The deal announced on Monday does not address whether or not Gadhafi will step down, nor is it binding. It does have four basic elements, according to the memorandum detailed by Lamara:

-- An immediate end to all fighting

-- Libyan authorities' cooperation "to facilitate the diligent delivery of humanitarian assistance"

-- The protection of foreign nationals in Libya

-- The start of talks involving various Libyan authorities, including opposition figures, with the aim of setting up "an inclusive transition period" to adopt and implement "political reforms necessary for the elimination of the causes of the current crisis"

The agreement, which the statement said Gadhafi had signed off on, states that the final resolution must consider "the aspirations of the Libyan people for democracy, political reform, justice, peace and security, as well as social ... development."

No timetable was spelled out, as to when and if a cease-fire might take effect or the political transition might take place. In the agreement, Gadhafi does voice support for the "deployment of an effective and credible monitoring mechanism."

"Leader Moammar Gadhafi expressed his full confidence in the African Union and its ability to successfully carry out the peace process in his country," the statement said.

Notably, Gadhafi has been a strong supporter of the African Union and has channeled large sums of money its way. Libya also holds a seat on the 15-member Peace and Security Council, which Lamara heads.

As such, opposition leaders have voiced skepticism that any mediation involving that multi-national group would end the conflict in a way that would satisfy their goals, which include Gadhafi's ouster.

The African Union's special committee on Libya is represented by Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Uganda and South Africa.

The Libyan leader himself made a rare public appearance in front of international media on Sunday, while the talks were ongoing. He rode off in a car as he waved to supporters near his tent, then later entered a second meeting with the African Union delegation.

These talks come as violence continues in the North African nation, where pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces have been engaged since February in bitter fighting.

After a series of setbacks driven by the advances of pro-government forces, Libyan rebel fighters this weekend recaptured the besieged city of Ajdabiya after apparently holding off Gadhafi's better-equipped forces.

In a hospital, witnesses told CNN on Saturday that three of Gadhafi's fighters who were killed were carrying identification cards from Syria, Algeria and Chad.

Meanwhile, in Misrata, NATO airstrikes hit parts of the city overnight and Sunday, destroying 14 tanks, an eyewitness told CNN, who did not want to be named for security reasons. At least eight people were killed and 22 injured from Saturday's fighting between the pro-Gadhafi forces and the rebels, according to medical sources in the city.

On Sunday, two rebel fighters died as they attempted to hunt down pro-Gadhafi snipers near the city center, another eyewitness said. The rebels were able to recover the bodies of 15 such snipers shot earlier Sunday. The snipers took positions on top of residential and commercial buildings, the eyewitness said.

Some youths, who had been part of the government's ranks until being captured in recent days by rebels, said they were teenagers and secondary-school students who had been forced to leave their homes in nearby towns and villages and undergo mandatory weeklong military training before fighting in Misrata, according to the second eyewitness.

Pro-Gadhafi forces continued shelling parts of the city Sunday morning, the eyewitness said. A steel mill near the port was targeted but the port is now under rebel control, eyewitnesses said. However, the port still holds about 4,000 foreign workers who are trying to leave the city.

Civilians living in the western sections of Misrata have been forced to leave their homes and have gathered in schools and friends' and relatives' homes near the city center, eyewitnesses said.

In a statement Saturday, NATO said its aircraft destroyed pro-Gadhafi ammunition stockpiles east of Tripoli that were supplying troops shelling Misrata and other cities. The alliance also made attacks on armored vehicles near Misrata and Ajdabiya, NATO said.

Opposition spokesman Shamsiddin Abdulmolah told CNN that rebels flew two attack helicopters from Tobruk to join the fighting in Ajdabiya.

"There were some 50 regime pickup trucks with machine guns and rocket launchers that attempted to enter Ajdabiya," Abdulmolah said. "The helicopters destroyed several of the trucks, and the rest took off."

Abdulmolah did not know what kind of helicopters the rebel forces used in Saturday's attack and could not confirm whether rebel forces coordinated the operation with NATO.

NATO is operating under a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force to protect Libyan civilians from attack.

The United Nations said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will travel to Cairo Thursday to head meetings on Libya at the Arab League headquarters. Among the participants will be Catherine Ashton, the representative for foreign affairs and security for the European Union.

While Gadhafi has largely stayed out of the public eye in recent days, state TV aired images Saturday of the leader visiting what appeared to be a primary school in Tripoli. The anchor said the school was a target of international airstrikes and was going to be attacked.

But NATO said in its statement that Gadhafi's forces continue to use civilians as human shields.

"We have observed horrific examples of regime forces deliberately placing their weapons systems close to civilians, their homes and even their places of worship," said Lt. Gen. Charlie Bouchard, commander of NATO's Operation Unified Protector. "Troops have also been observed hiding behind women and children. This type of behavior violates the principles of international law and will not be tolerated."

[quote=koman;1728545]

Originally Posted by Butterfly

We were getting oil just fine before...and Gadaffi was "compliant" so why would be be supporting his opponents if it was just about oil.

.

The rebellion in Libya was not of the wests making. But once it happened and they took a stand on the moral issues, and referred him to the international Court on human rights abuses, they were drawn into picking a side.

Gaddafi was regarded as a loose cannon sort of a trading partner and had few friends in either the Arab or western world. Gadaffi is a great pal of Castro and Caverez remember. The memory of Lockerbie still in a lot of westerners minds too. With the momentum the revolution had in its early days it looked like a good chance to get rid of him with minimal involvement. Same sort of deal the west had with Musharraf in Egypt. They were happy to back and arm a dictator for their own interests, but when the revolution came and it looked like he was on the way out they turned against him. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are different though. The dictators there are firmly entrenched and so the west is happy to see them stay since they are compliant with our needs.

Libyans protest as ceasefire talks begin - World - CBC News

Libyans protest as ceasefire talks begin

The Associated Press

Last Updated: Apr 11, 2011 6:56 AM ET

Several hundred Libyans are protesting in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, saying there can be no peace without Moammar Gadhafi's departure and expressing little faith in an African Union team trying to mediate a ceasefire.

About 600 protesters are waving pre-Gadhafi flags and chanting slogans against the Libyan strongman outside Tibesty Hotel in Benghazi, where a five-nation AU team is expected to arrive Monday.

The AU delegation said after talks in Tripoli Sunday that Gadhafi accepted their "road map" for a ceasefire. The meeting came hours after NATO airstrikes battered Gadhafi's tanks, helping the rebels push back government troops who had been advancing toward Benghazi.

Protester Jilal Tajouri says that "Gadhafi and all his sons must leave Libya so we can have democracy."

so they are going to invade with the false pretense of UN peacekeepers now ?

Khaddafi's playing this quite well. If he agrees to UN or AU peacekeepers - then the Western-coaxed rebelion fails. That's why they (NATO etc) won't allow it.

^ Western coaxed rebellion? Link please...

Originally Posted by Muadib

^ Western coaxed rebellion? Link please...

The west coerced many people in the area to believe that "change" was necessary. They set the poor buggers up and immediately turned their back on them.

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen or have I missed all the changes that have mystically happened in the last few months.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by koman

In all there were 40 nations represented at the London conference...plus the UN, Arab League and African Union. No concerns about " illegal" actions from any of them

You were there, you have read the transcript of the meeting. You know nothing about what went on at the meeting. Or do you mean the "concerns" were not reported in the "media"?

No I was not there; were you? How do you know what went on? You don't believe the media anyway....it's part of the plot, remember!
However if there had been any serious dissent, I think it would have been reported.....or are they just reporting directly to you?

Originally Posted by koman

Gadaffi "called" for a ceasefire....but did not actually cease firing......now when you call for a ceasefire you are supposed to stop firing....maybe ya all missed that detail. If he had ceased firing and made any attempt to deal with the situation other than brute force, his military assets would not have been attacked.

You have "independently verified evidence" of the breaking of the ceasefire?
Not personally, but most of the civilized world seems to have noticed it....there was not breaking of the ceasefire, because no ceasefire was implemented to begin with. How did you manage to miss that....

Originally Posted by koman

but the US wants to sit this one out

Obama was forced out by his "supporters". He has his team of lawyers and they offered their opinion which led him to believe the act of going to war was unconstitutional, the act of going to war was illegal.

So Obama is reporting directly to you as well.....my word.....
I listened to no less than 3 US constitutional lawyers discussing this...the consensus was that Obama was on completely solid ground. There is no "declaration of war" it is simply an armed intervention in support a UN resolution.....he has 60 days to get congress to approve in any case.....it has been done many many times before. You need to call Obama again, maybe you had a bad connection when he advised you.

Originally Posted by koman

The rebels are "civilians"and the Libyan army sees fit to place military assets in areas where civilians are providing shielding. It's pretty SOP in ME conflicts.

A civilian does not take up arms. A civilian which does becomes and armed insurgent. Are you suggesting that the government movement of tanks, apc etc is not unusual in the area for stopping mob rule. If you suggest that is not you need to look at Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen ..... The movement of the ITNC army forces who retreated into the centre of Misrata and Ajdabiys of course put no civilians at risk.

But you keep telling us that NATO is murdering "innocent civilians"....how do you know that anyone killed there is a civilian and/or not armed? Where is the "independent" verification.....or are you relying on anti western....ahem media? and/or the reports from the Gadaffi camp...where truth and justice prevail...

I have no real doubt that civilians have been killed, but we really don't know who killed them...in a situation like that, how could we.....you just automatically allocate blame to NATO or anyone except the dictatorship-----

Originally Posted by koman

If you feel it necessary to constantly rail against this collection of countries in favor of a demented dictator who has committed numerous crimes against the civilized world and his own population...fine, but I wonder why anyone would do that...other than through a twisted, vitriolic hatred of all things western....which certainly exists in some individuals for reasons known only to themselves.

This alleged "demented dictator" was acceptable to all these "civilized" countries for many years. Your rant regarding the motives of the posters here is irrelevant to the people of Libya currently being murdered by the NATO and "national" forces currently waging war, not enforcing a no fly zone.

He was "acceptable" and tolerated at times....but he was bombed in the past when he stepped over the line too far.....settled him down quite a bit don't you think; and yes unfortunately we are compelled to accept unpleasant people in power in various places; actually we "accept" far too much....we obviously need to attack a lot more countries....but lets try to do it one at a time...OK with you?....

The rejection of yet another offer of a ceasefire by the Libyan Government shows who wants the slaughter to continue.

Let's wait and see......if a genuine ceasefire occurs. You are so quick to accept anything that comes from the Gadaffi propaganda machine, but totally discard anything---however credible from the other side.....are you related to this man or what? OhOh Gadaffi.........sounds quite good actually...

Originally Posted by OhOh

The west coerced many people in the area to believe that "change" was necessary.

Link?

Your "position" seems to be that the media cannot be trusted on the details of anything to do with this situation and therefore you can just make shit up. Would that be about right?

Originally Posted by Muadib

Western coaxed rebellion? Link please...

www.nato.int

Originally Posted by OhOh

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen or have I missed all the changes that have mystically happened in the last few months.

It's all a big coincidence, didn't you know that?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Muadib

^ Western coaxed rebellion? Link please...

The west coerced many people in the area to believe that "change" was necessary. They set the poor buggers up and immediately turned their back on them.

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen or have I missed all the changes that have mystically happened in the last few months.

Disagree there. The rebellions in the various countries were spontaneous and erupted from internal pressure.

When the rebels saw the US and their tag along western friends backing the rebellions in Egypt and Tunisia I believe they thought they would get the same sort of support. That hasnt been forthcoming except in the case of Libya.