Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Panda

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.

Exactly....the uprising in Tunisia resulting mainly from very high unemployment and lack of opportunity for the young. It resonated with the majority and the dictator saw the writing on the wall and left.

It seems pretty apparent that the uprising in Egypt was encouraged by events in Tunisia. It too had some success in that the dictator stepped down....internal pressure. The Libyans; seeing the successes in neighboring countries decided that they could do the same....but their dictator shows not willingness to do anything except kill everybody who stands in the way of his authority.

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya Bahrain, Yemen, Syria etc have many differences, but they have one thing in common; a complete lack of participation by the populations in political process, freedom of expression, and brutal reprisals against those that challenge their respective leaders. It's a fundamental part of human nature to want those things.....and people can not be ruled by fear indefinitely. They will rebel...it's just a matter of timing.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Panda

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.

Exactly....the uprising in Tunisia resulting mainly from very high unemployment and lack of opportunity for the young. It resonated with the majority and the dictator saw the writing on the wall and left.

It seems pretty apparent that the uprising in Egypt was encouraged by events in Tunisia. It too had some success in that the dictator stepped down....internal pressure. The Libyans; seeing the successes in neighboring countries decided that they could do the same....but their dictator shows not willingness to do anything except kill everybody who stands in the way of his authority.

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya Bahrain, Yemen, Syria etc have many differences, but they have one thing in common; a complete lack of participation by the populations in political process, freedom of expression, and brutal reprisals against those that challenge their respective leaders. It's a fundamental part of human nature to want those things.....and people can not be ruled by fear indefinitely. They will rebel...it's just a matter of timing.

Farken 'ell! I take back all the bad things I said about you there Koman.
Even considering sending you a green on that one.

Libyans had good healthcare, education, water and electricity supply, etc. You were fine if you didn't oppose the government.

Then came uprisings, spurned by Egypt and Tunisia, whose people were a lot worse off.

Eastern Libya has always been a hotbed of radicals. They tried to force the same in Libya, but were doomed to fail. Suddenly Cameron, Sarkozi figured that a popular war against someone the perceived as having unfinished business with, seemed like a great idea to boost their ratings. so Ghadaffi did not just roll over and go away, but fought back, backed with popular support NATO thought he didn't have.

If he was left to crush the uprising, people would have been punished for it, and that would be the end of it.

They tried an uprising and failed. No doubt some would be executed. That's the middle east. Life would have gone on afterwards. Now, we have the potential of many hundreds, if not thousands of deaths. Each and every one of those will be NATO's fault. especially UK and FR

Originally Posted by FarangRed

especially UK and FR

I hope Sarko and Cameron are taken to the Hague for this, for putting civilians in the line of fire in their silly little war

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Now, we have the potential of many hundreds, if not thousands of deaths. Each and every one of those will be NATO's fault. especially UK and FR

And IF the Libyan army and air force had been allowed to pound Benghazi flat...who would be at fault for all those deaths.....France? UK?, NATO?........or just the US?..it's always quite popular to blame them!

I'm sure the Colonel appreciates your support though FR ....he seems a bit lacking in support these days. Personally I'm gonna miss his great speeches...

I agree why do they think they are any different?^

No doubt western leaders promote, or shy away from war predominantly for their own political interests domestically. An example being Bush after 9/11 attacking Iraq for no justifiable reason. Now, Cameron and Sarkozy to the fore but Obama bowing out as his domestic audience has now had their fill of blowing up other little countries at the taxpayers expense.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by FarangRed

especially UK and FR

I hope Sarko and Cameron are taken to the Hague for this, for putting civilians in the line of fire in their silly little war

come on now! no chance

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I hope Sarko and Cameron are taken to the Hague for this, for putting civilians in the line of fire in their silly little war

Ask this guy how it works when you piss off UN and Nato.

Originally Posted by Panda

No doubt western leaders promote, or shy away from war predominantly for their own political interests domestically. An example being Bush after 9/11 attacking Iraq for no justifiable reason. Now, Cameron and Sarkozy to the fore but Obama bowing out as his domestic audience has now had their fill of blowing up other little countries at the taxpayers expense.

Leave aside France, UK and US for a minute.......what reason would Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Spain and at least a dozen other democratic states have to support the action......

Some of these countries are rated as the most democratic and non-corrupt states in the world. At least two (Norway and Canada) have no interest whatsoever in Libyan oil. They do not as a rule favor military action against anybody, unless it is imperative. They are frequently at odds with the foreign policies of the US, UK etc.....but here they are; all on side and involved in direct and indirect actions against Libya.....or more specifically against it's long standing "government"

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Now, we have the potential of many hundreds, if not thousands of deaths. Each and every one of those will be NATO's fault. especially UK and FR

And IF the Libyan army and air force had been allowed to pound Benghazi flat...who would be at fault for all those deaths.....France? UK?, NATO?........or just the US?..it's always quite popular to blame them!

I'm sure the Colonel appreciates your support though FR ....he seems a bit lacking in support these days. Personally I'm gonna miss his great speeches...

The thing is Koman that the rest of the world lends USA the money to run their economy. Money that wont ever be paid back at its real value when lent. And the USA spends a very large chunk of that money expanding its empire through a military force equal to that of the whole rest of the world combined. If the USA wants to play the worlds policeman and take our money to fund it then they better take responsibility when things go wrong. It does appear that USA is sneaking out through the back door on this one in Libya, but hell, they got enough on their hands with Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there is the next goal on the planning table of Iran, and all with a domestic economy in shambles and voting public weary of far off wars that undermine their standard of living.

So yea, the bulk of the western world does look to USA to lead the way when it comes to warfare involving them. And when it goes wrong, the leader gets the blame. If you are willing to take the spoils of war then dont farken whinge when the hangers on complain it didnt turn out like they expected. Just the price you got to pay for being the worlds current military/economic empire.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Panda

No doubt western leaders promote, or shy away from war predominantly for their own political interests domestically. An example being Bush after 9/11 attacking Iraq for no justifiable reason. Now, Cameron and Sarkozy to the fore but Obama bowing out as his domestic audience has now had their fill of blowing up other little countries at the taxpayers expense.

Leave aside France, UK and US for a minute.......what reason would Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Spain and at least a dozen other democratic states have to support the action......

Some of these countries are rated as the most democratic and non-corrupt states in the world. At least two (Norway and Canada) have no interest whatsoever in Libyan oil. They do not as a rule favor military action against anybody, unless it is imperative. They are frequently at odds with the foreign policies of the US, UK etc.....but here they are; all on side and involved in direct and indirect actions against Libya.....or more specifically against it's long standing "government"

All those countries you mentioned are allies of USA, UK and France and all voted to support the UN resolution 1973 primarily on the sole basis of humanitarian grounds. China and Russia (who could have vetoed the resolution, as USA so often does in the Israel/Palestine issue), decided to abstain. Not because of any opposition to the humanitarian grounds, but because it was not deemed to be in their national interest. Just as USA so often has vetoed UN resolutions regarding Israeli human rights abuses against the Palestinians.

So you see, in the end it all comes down to national economic and political interests rather than just what is right or wrong. But I am sure you know that already from your earlier posts.

Originally Posted by koman

.what reason would Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Spain and at least a dozen other democratic states

For the NATO forces that have joined in I would ask what have these countries forces actually done? I haven't heard of any attacks by any of them.

For the other "partners" there has been reports of some of them arming the insurgent army.

Libya Live Blog - April 12 | Al Jazeera Blogs



Captured rebel Libyan fighters have been found shot in the head with their hands tied behindtheir backs, Amnesty International says, adding it has strong evidence of other human rights abuses. Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi have also deliberately killed unarmed protesters and attacked civilians fleeing fighting, Amnesty says, citing evidence gathered by its delegates in eastern Libya over the past six weeks.

The rights group says Gaddafi's troops appeared to have executed captured rebel fighters close to the town of Ajdabiyah. Its researchers in eastern Libya had in recent days seen the bodies of two opposition fighters who had been shot in the back of the head after their hands had been bound behind their backs.

Amnesty said it had received credible reports of four similar cases, where bodies of captured fighters were reportedly found with their hands tied behind their backs and multiple gunshot wounds to the upper parts of their bodies. Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's director for the Middle East and North Africa, said:

The circumstances of these killings strongly suggest that they were carried out by the forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Panda

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.

What's your definition of "backing" Panda? Seems to me the US rode the fence hoping it would go the other way in Egypt - and it still may do just that - people were fools to think they could trust the Army that's been backing Mubarak for 30 years.
)

About 40 $billion into the army coffers over the years there Tom. Which means the US foreign Office pretty much owned the Egyptian army.

And I certainly do agree that USA sat on the fence for a long time until they saw which way it was going. USA controls the Egyptian military through massive financial donations, or should I say "assistance" . The pay off is to keep the Egyptian military off the Israelis backs. The Egyptian military are the real power brokers in that country (all be it funded by USA). The Egyptian military is in fact a corporate identity of sorts with its leaders owning much of the Egyptian infrastructure courtesy of the corrupt government they previously supported.
So, despite the fact that Mustarif is gone, USA still controls Egypt through its military. Hence the ongoing protests by its people and the continuing human rights abuses by the military.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by koman

.what reason would Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Spain and at least a dozen other democratic states

For the NATO forces that have joined in I would ask what have these countries forces actually done? I haven't heard of any attacks by any of them.

For the other "partners" there has been reports of some of them arming the insurgent army.

Canada: One Frigate, Six F18 Hornets plus support air tanker and Recce.

Netherlands: Six F16's plus support AC

Sweden: Eight Gripen JAS 39's (first time in 200 years that Sweden has sent
military assets to any war)

Denmark: 6 or 8 F16's

and on and on.... nearly.everyone has sent hardware and support to this operation, but I don't have a complete list handy just now.

No details are released regarding specific tasks or who carries them out....that is perfectly normal and would be part of overall operational security. I doubt if the anti-Gadaffi people care much about which national emblem is painted on the bombs that destroy the enemy tanks....but obviously most of the actual strikes would be carried out by French and British AC.... they have the numbers and probably more experienced air crews....now that the US has backed off that would seem to be the most likely.

...and yes there have been reports that arms have been supplied to the rebel forces by Quatar, but who knows.... They will need lots of ammo because they seem to spend much of their time firing what they have into the air. Not exactly
a model army, are they??

NO amount of air activity is going to win this....you cannot take ground or hold ground from the air....either the rebels will have to get their act together or ground troops will have to be deployed....that is, if no cease fire can be arranged. That naturally would be the best solution for everybody...at least in the short term. Ceasefire or not, they still have to find a way to deal with Col Gadaffi and his family. The people of Eastern Libya want no part of them and have stated over and over they they will not negotiate until the whole clan leave the country.

It's pretty hard to assess what support Gadaffi actually has. Some of what we see is purely mercenary support. He was a founding member (some say the founding member) of the African Union, and he has spread a lot of cash around amongst the member states, but how much can be relied on that remains to be seen.

Don't sell your gold just yet.....

Originally Posted by Panda

About 40 $billion into the army coffers over the years there Tom

You need to look at the value of the gas Egypt has been supplying Israel since their "ceasefire". Israel got cheap gas from Egypt which was repaid by the Israeli controlled US government.

Originally Posted by Panda

Hence the ongoing protests by its people and the continuing human rights abuses by the military.

By inference the US is turning a blind eye to these alleged abuses

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by FarangRed

especially UK and FR

I hope Sarko and Cameron are taken to the Hague for this, for putting civilians in the line of fire in their silly little war

Me to and then these guys might think twice about getting involved in some silly little war

Ok guys maybe someone can tell me why did Egypt have the largest Americano embassy in the world?

I also think that the only reason Mubarak got out of the was because the septic's told him to

It's a different story with out good friend Daffi, I didnt think he was going to lie down and roll over, it's game on

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by FarangRed

especially UK and FR

I hope Sarko and Cameron are taken to the Hague for this, for putting civilians in the line of fire in their silly little war

Sure you hope

Gadhafi Shells Town as France Presses NATO - WSJ.com

Gadhafi Shells Town as France Presses NATO

Associated Press

AJDABIYA, Libya—Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces shelled the only major city in the western half of Libya that remains under partial rebel control Tuesday as France said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be doing more to take out heavy weaponry targeting civilians.

Weeks of fierce government bombardment of Misrata have terrorized the city's residents, killing dozens of people and leaving food and medical supplies scarce, according to residents, doctors and rights groups.

"Unfortunately, with the long-range war machines of Gadhafi forces, no place is safe in Misrata," a medical official in Misrata told The Associated Press. Six people were killed Monday and another corpse was brought in Tuesday, he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said NATO's actions are "not enough" and that the alliance should be firing on the weapons being used by Col. Gadhafi's troops to target civilians in Misrata.

Mr. Juppé spoke on France-Info radio, the day after Libyan rebels rejected a cease-fire proposal by African mediators because it didn't insist that Col. Gadhafi relinquish power.

"NATO has to play its role in full. NATO wanted to take the military command of the operations," Mr. Juppé said. He also urged the EU to do more to get humanitarian aid to Misrata.

France has played a particularly aggressive role in Libya in recent weeks, pushing diplomatically for a U.N. resolution to allow the international military operation and firing the first strikes in the campaign. France also was the first to recognize the Libyan opposition and to send a diplomatic envoy to the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

NATO officials in Brussels didn't immediately respond to the criticism.

Also Tuesday, having defected to the U.K., former Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa was set to travel to Qatar for an international meeting on Libyaon Wednesday, a person familiar with the matter said.

The so-called Libya contact group, bringing together Western and regional governments, is scheduled to meet in Doha.

Mr. Koussa arrived in the U.K. late last month having resigned his post.

Late Monday Mr. Koussa released a statement to the British Broadcasting Corp. saying he had been "devoted" to his work for 30 years under Col. Muammar Gadhafi but that after recent events "things changed and I couldn't continue."

"I know that what I did to resign will cause me problems, but I'm ready to make that sacrifice for the sake of my country," he said in a statement in Arabic translated by the BBC.

Mr. Koussa also warned against the risks of civil war and the possibility of his country becoming "a new Somalia".

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said Mr. Koussa was "a free individual, who can travel to and from the U.K. as he wishes."

Still, the U.K. would need to be given the correct paperwork by the Foreign Office for Mr. Koussa to be allowed back into Britain if he wishes to return.

The former Libyan intelligence chief was interviewed by Scottish police and prosecutors looking to get more information about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, but Mr. Koussa was never placed under arrest.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Now, we have the potential of many hundreds, if not thousands of deaths. Each and every one of those will be NATO's fault. especially UK and FR

And IF the Libyan army and air force had been allowed to pound Benghazi flat...who would be at fault for all those deaths.....France? UK?, NATO?........or just the US?..it's always quite popular to blame them!

I'm sure the Colonel appreciates your support though FR ....he seems a bit lacking in support these days. Personally I'm gonna miss his great speeches...

Blaming the US? Not blaming the US but their President more likely. Early on the problem was with non-commitment of Obama. UK and France had to do it alone, but the world police is now US, they inherited this responsibility from the British, now having it you should not cave in. Now you see its not so easy.