Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Butterfly

and you seem happy about it, oh wait I forgot, it doesn't matter, they are all muslim scums

Your crystal ball must be broken, I have a sick sense of humor.

I can tell you this, I wont lose any sleep over this squabble or debacle.

Libya's Gaddafi calls for negotiation with NATO | Reuters

Libya's Gaddafi calls for negotiation with NATO







By Lin Noueihed
TRIPOLI | Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:06pm EDT

(Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi struck a conciliatory note on Saturday, saying he was ready for a ceasefire and negotiations provided NATO "stop its planes."

In a live speech on Libyan television that began in the early hours of Saturday morning and lasted 80 minutes, Gaddafi said he did not intend to step down or leave the country and that Libyans could solve their own problems if NATO strikes end.

"(Libya) is ready until now to enter a ceasefire ... but a ceasefire cannot be from one side," said Gaddafi, speaking from behind a desk and aided by reams of papers covered in what appeared to be hand-written notes.

"We were the first to welcome a ceasefire and we were the first to accept a ceasefire ... but the Crusader NATO attack has not stopped," he said.

"The gate to peace is open."

Poorly armed and trained rebel groups have been fighting since mid-February to end Gaddafi's 41-year rule. NATO forces say a United Nations resolution allows them to attack government positions to protect civilians; but the support has not brought the swift fall of Gaddafi some expected.

Gaddafi said the NATO airstrikes and naval patrols went beyond the United Nations mandate and urged Russia, China and friendly African and Latin American countries to press the Security Council to take a fresh look at the resolution.

Gaddafi said the strikes and sanctions were affecting civilians and were destroying the country's infrastructure.

In a marked contrast to previous speeches, where he called the rebels "rats" and promised to track the down house by house, Gaddafi urged the rebels to lay down their weapons and said Libyans should not be fighting each other.

He blamed the rebellion on mercenaries and foreigners.

"We cannot fight each other," he said. "We are one family."

Gaddafi denied mass attacks on civilians and challenged NATO to find him 1,000 people who had been killed in the conflict.

"We did not attack them or cross the sea ... why are they attacking us?" asked Gaddafi, referring to European countries involved in the air strikes. "Let us negotiate with you, the countries that attack us. Let us negotiate."

If NATO powers were not interested in talks, however, the Libyan people would not surrender and were willing to die resisting what he called its "terrorist" attacks. He warned NATO that its forces would die if it invaded by land.

"Either freedom or death. No surrender. No fear. No departure," he said.

Speaking three months after former Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled the North African country after weeks of protests, Gaddafi said no one had the right to force him out.

"I'm not leaving my country," he said. "No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country."

After the broadcast, state television said NATO warplanes had bombed a site in the Libyan capital Tripoli next to the television building during Gaddafi's address.

"A building adjacent to the Jamahiriya building was bombed during the broadcast of Muammar Gaddafi's speech and that implies a target on the leader of the revolution himself," the television said after Gaddafi had finished speaking.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"I'm not leaving my country," he said. "No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country."

he has a good point,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"I'm not leaving my country," he said. "No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country."

he has a good point,

His country, (well half the population anyway), is fighting to boot him out of the place and/or put him on trial for war crimes and have him executed.

Why not put it to a vote?

"My country" indeed. It is as much his country as any other Libyan citizens. He doesnt OWN the place by any kind of divine right. Let the people decide.
If Gaddafi wants a ceasefire, then let him cease firing artillery on civilians in his own country. Pretty simple really.

I guess he has figured out that he is going, one way or the other, and is now trying to negotiate his way out by setting his own terms and conditions. But he has dug himself a great big hole now and with no way to climb out of it. Too late to negotiate now. Gaddafi and sons are going. Either in a pine box or a very long extended holiday in some place like Venezuela or one of his African friends nations. The choice is his.

Watch the rats start jumping ship as the communications centers and bunkers start getting hit.

Originally Posted by Panda

His country, (well half the population anyway)

Quite a few folks. A nation divided. President Lincoln was faced with a similar situation.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"I'm not leaving my country," he said. "No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country."

he has a good point,

Given his situation a point he has been forced into. The international community has put him in a no win position by choosing sides in what is a civil war. Armed rebels pitted against government forces which clearly have support from a significant number of Libyans.

If Qaddafi "steps down" his future has been well defined by the international community. He, his family and those who carried out his orders will be arrested and tried and surely convicted for crimes against humanity. No immunity, no deals as has been granted to Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen.

He and his supporters have but one option. A fight to the death. A fight which I believe will go on for a very long time even if NATO puts a significant amount of troops on the ground.

Looking like another "Shock and Awe Shit" exercise in futility.

These despot dictators are generally cowards at heart when the chips are down and the odds are against them. They rule by force of arms and enjoy a comfortable and wealthy life at the expense of their own people.

Maybe Gaddafi is completely nuts and will fight to the death? The general consensus from those who know him seems to indicate he is obsessive about his leadership.
But one man doesnt make an army. There are certainly those around him in the chain of command who dont share the same convictions. Such is the reason why NATO is now starting to hit communications centers and bunkers housing the privileged elite of Gadaffies forces. They can choose to die in their bunkers or swap sides and plead they were forced to kill their own countries people opposing Gaddafi.
Thats the current NATO/US strategy rather than fighting the battle against the soldiers at the front. A far more economical plan than getting involved in a prolonged civil war. Separate the head from the body of the snake and the serpent dies.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Panda

His country, (well half the population anyway)

Quite a few folks. A nation divided. President Lincoln was faced with a similar situation.

And how did he end up?

^Remembered as one of the greats!

maybe if we asked Sarko to step down, he would, but you can't expect a leader to step down just because a few outsider nutters make illegal and unjustified calls for a resignation

direct participation by NATO in this conflict is quite shameful, I am sure the Russians will be justified now in their perceived threat of NATO acting illegally and without international control

in the meantime, civilians are being threatened and NATO, as expected, is prolonging the conflict and the suffering of the civilians

another job well done,

Originally Posted by mao say dung

^Remembered as one of the greats!

Dead. Assassinated. But fondly remembered in history because his side won.
Gaddafi is unlikely to be be fondly remembered by anybody but a few of his most ardent admirers whether he escapes into exile or dies in his attempt to cling to power.

Lincoln never lived to see his ultimate victory. Gadaffie wont either.

Mao and Stalin are still regarded as hero in their home country, so not sure you have a case here Panda

they could be a far worse dictator replacing Gadaffi,

I bet in a few years everyone in Iraq will remember the good old days under Saddam,

history can play very dirty tricks on collective memory,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

in the meantime, civilians are being threatened and NATO, as expected, is prolonging the conflict and the suffering of the civilians

another job well done,

Dont worry Butters, it will all be over soon. NATO is gunning for the ring leaders now instead of just their troops on the front line. Certainly a wide stretch of the spirit and intent of UNSC resolution 1973, but as usual in these things, one open to interpretation when first options dont appear to be succeeding.

The western voting public are sick and tired of fruitless protracted ground wars sapping their wealth in these tough financial times. Even in warmongering USA they have lost their taste for war. Bend the rules and get it over quick is the way its going to go. Gaddafi and his war command structure are dead men walking unless they concede. Expect to see more missile hits on command and control bunkers. One minute you are laying out strategic military plans and the next minute you are vaporized. Good enough reason for some of Gaddafi's top level military commanders to consider a change of heart.

Regime change, not a victory on the battle front is what NATO wants.

Originally Posted by Panda

Dont worry Butters, it will all be over soon. NATO is gunning for the ring leaders now instead of just their troops on the front line. Certainly a wide stretch of the spirit and intent of UNSC resolution 1973, but as usual in these things, one open to interpretation when first options dont appear to be succeeding.

you sound quite an apologist for double standard

Originally Posted by Panda

Regime change, not a victory on the battle front is what NATO wants

that's illegal and in direct violation of the UN charter

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Mao and Stalin are still regarded as hero in their home country, so not sure you have a case here Panda

they could be a far worse dictator replacing Gadaffi,

I bet in a few years everyone in Iraq will remember the good old days under Saddam,

history can play very dirty tricks on collective memory,

Hey Butteres, I completely agree with you there.

This contagious push for democracy in the Middle East has caught the western puppet masters by surprise. The west funded and armed oppressive dictators in the Middle East and now the people have risen up and are demanding democracy, the west (and particularly USA) are at odds of how to deal with it. Best they can hope for is to get on side with whoever wins the conflict.

The western puppet master governments have created their own nemesis by supporting ruthless dictators in the past. Now the pigeons are coming home to roost. And USA, UK and EU may not like the political choices of people in new democracies in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Panda

Regime change, not a victory on the battle front is what NATO wants

that's illegal and in direct violation of the UN charter

Who gives a shit. Its the quickest way to get it over and thats what they are going to do. A protracted civil war with NATO involvement is not a political option for the west in these days of financial constraints. The Yanks, who are usually bristling for a fight, opted out of this one at the first chance and dumped it in NATOS lap. They didnt even want to get involved in it in the first place. Now it seems the Yanks are back in the picture with their precision missile strikes and targeted assassinations. Makes a lot more economic sense than slogging it out on the battle front for years.

The Imperial Corps have been looking for a way into Africa to stymie the Chinese for quite some time. The Arab Spring may have sprung an opportunity on them that has caught them by surprise, but things seem to moving along quite nicely.

The Chinese are out of Libya and seem unlikely to get back in and the Russians will soon enough be falling all over themselves re: Syria in order to keep that warm water port open.

And it's probably worthwhile pointing out that there are often times when "USA, UK and EU may not like the political choices of people" in their own countries, but that doesn't slow them down all that much; I don't think they really worry about the choices North Africans and other Arabs are likely to make when they get their new democracies.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Panda

Dont worry Butters, it will all be over soon. NATO is gunning for the ring leaders now instead of just their troops on the front line. Certainly a wide stretch of the spirit and intent of UNSC resolution 1973, but as usual in these things, one open to interpretation when first options dont appear to be succeeding.

you sound quite an apologist for double standard

No apologist. Indeed I have very strong moral feelings on the this issue and many others. Just calling it as I see it at the current state of play, even if I dont agree with it all. There is a difference between being an idealist and a realist. Doesnt mean an idealist has to give up his principles in order to conform to current realities though.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

I don't think they really worry about the choices North Africans and other Arabs are likely to make when they get their new democracies.

If they don't like the outcome simply label the winner a terrorist group and refuse to deal with them.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

The Imperial Corps have been looking for a way into Africa to stymie the Chinese for quite some time. The Arab Spring may have sprung an opportunity on them that has caught them by surprise, but things seem to moving along quite nicely.

The Chinese are out of Libya and seem unlikely to get back in and the Russians will soon enough be falling all over themselves re: Syria in order to keep that warm water port open.

And it's probably worthwhile pointing out that there are often times when "USA, UK and EU may not like the political choices of people" in their own countries, but that doesn't slow them down all that much; I don't think they really worry about the choices North Africans and other Arabs are likely to make when they get their new democracies.

Sorry for laughing Mao. The American economic empire is in decline, though they do still have a very substantial military to back it up. China and Russia are making economic inroads into Asia and Africa and there is not a single thing USA can do about it.

You're watching what the USA can do about it now that the EU has been dragged out of its "postmodern" phase and is beginning to bear some share of the Western Imperial burden.

I suspect we're actually seeing the beginning of a whole new phase of the Project.

What do you think is likely to happen with the Russian military and economic position in Syria in the coming months and years now that the beachhead is being established in Africa?

Originally Posted by mao say dung

I suspect we're actually seeing the beginning of a whole new phase of the Project

I am with you on that one,

the Pentagon shadow government is successfully putting European leaders on board for their illegal "empire"

kicking out the Chinese from Libya is also sending a nice message to other ME regimes,