Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[dylans]

Hands off Libya! Brits out!

What about the French and the Americans and Canadians and Italians and Danish?

 

[ernestolynch]

Lapdogs

 

[Idaho]

So why did the Germans abstain then?

 

[elbows]

Obama speaking now, no ground troops, plenty of other assistance. Also confirms that Clinton is going to Paris tomorrow (as is Cameron).

 

[Lock&Light]

So why did the Germans abstain then?

They're not a war-like people.

 

[Plumdaff]

So why did the Germans abstain then?

More concern about this than they'd be prepared to admit publicly, plus the occupation of Libya during WW2? (of course Italy was the colonial power, but I suspect Berlusconi wouldn't give a shit about that)

 

[Divisive Cotton]

They're not a war-like people.

not sure why bunch of wusses

 

[elbows]

Combined with noises about the attacks starting last night, and more noises again that attacks could start today, the following is interesting to me:

1837: Just before the US president started speaking, Reuters, quoting an unnamed diplomatic source, said French and British jets could fly over Libya before Saturday's summit in Paris "in a symbolic move".

We may be willing to spend a few days seeing if waving our military around is enough to either make Gaddafi run away, or more likely get more people within his own regime to turn against him 'before its too late'. If this doesnt work then let the bombing commence.

 

[gentlegreen]

Hands off Libya! Brits out!

It's presumably the French driving this one - post "jet-gate" with their new foreign minister Juppé - one time presidential hopeful - needing to make a mark ... and with Sarkozy's popularity at rock bottom.

 

[rekil]

So why did the Germans abstain then?

More state elections are coming up and the CDU/CSU are taking a hammering at the moment. They have enough trouble in 'Stan and the former defence minister's (Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg) PHD plagiarism row.

 

[Casually Red]

France (and Cameron) seem particularly gung ho so yes this is a real possibility and soon. I think Gaddafi is hoping to provoke a backlash within the EU. Germany, the most powerful member of the EU, is already very uneasy about the whole adventure and air attacks without a very clear example of Libyan human rights abuses such as an explicit air attack on civilians, may cause them to be more outspoken. (At least Gaddafi hopes)

the issue is though this has never actually happened , so why the fuck are they there in the first place ? One reason , oil .

 

[Casually Red]

Obama speaking now, no ground troops, plenty of other assistance. Also confirms that Clinton is going to Paris tomorrow (as is Cameron).

this is what they said in kosovo . In reality when the serbs refused to submit after months of bombing they were on the verge of invasion . The resolution is an open ended go ahead for war .

 

[weltweit]

the issue is though this has never actually happened , so why the fuck are they there in the first place ? One reason , oil .

This isn't about oil. BP already has a major contract with the Gaddafi regime, it would suit them better if Gaddafi remained in power and their contract could continue normally. This is about a democratic revolt by the Libyan people being put down brutally by the Gaddafi regime and our siding with the forces of democratic reform.

 

[weltweit]

This ceasefire is a clever move, it may take the wind from the UN allies sails a bit. However I think it only means a cease in the approach on Benghazi, as far as I can tell other Libyan towns and cities are still seeing violence.

 

[weltweit]

Obama: U.S., allies ready to launch military action in Libya
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-pn-obama-libya-20110319,0,2928506.story

President Obama announces, in a warning to Moammar Kadafi, that the U.N. will act if the Libyan leader doesn't immediately stop all attacks on rebels and pull back troops from Benghazi and three other cities.

I wonder which the three other cities are. Perhaps we may see the more official division of Libya into west pro Gaddafi and east pro rebel Libya.

 

[elbows]

This isn't about oil. BP already has a major contract with the Gaddafi regime, it would suit them better if Gaddafi remained in power and their contract could continue normally. This is about a democratic revolt by the Libyan people being put down brutally by the Gaddafi regime and our siding with the forces of democratic reform.

The initiation of events may have had nothing to do with oil, but our response to it is most certainly strongly influenced by the oil. (although some will argue about that and think the whole thing was a setup from the start, not me though)

 

[elbows]

This ceasefire is a clever move, it may take the wind from the UN allies sails a bit. However I think it only means a cease in the approach on Benghazi, as far as I can tell other Libyan towns and cities are still seeing violence.

Funny you should say that.

1937: Just in: In a joint statement, the UK, France and the US demand Col Gaddafi's troops halt their advance on Benghazi and withdraw from several cities. Further to that, the French also demand gas, electricity, and water is reconnected in towns where it has been cut off.

edit - oops I see you actually beat me to it with this news.

 

[weltweit]

The initiation of events may have had nothing to do with oil, but our response to it is most certainly strongly influenced by the oil. (although some will argue about that and think the whole thing was a setup from the start, not me though)

It is hard for me to understand what you are writing. Are you writing that if there was no oil in Libya there would be no UNSC no-fly zone?

There was no oil in the Balkans, yet we had a no-fly zone there.

 

[elbows]

It is hard for me to understand what you are writing. Are you writing that if there was no oil in Libya there would be no UNSC no-fly zone?

There was no oil in the Balkans, yet we had a no-fly zone there.

Im saying that we react differently to events in any country based on a range of factors, and oil is a very big factor. It an sway the balance between going for one set of options, including inaction, and going in big time. Thats the way the world tends to work. Its not the only reason we ever do anything though, hence the Balkans, although you will probably find some people who can link any events back to oil, but they are oversimplifying to fit one of many crude one-dimensional world-views and political stances. And its not the same as saying that the conflict and issues began because of oil, that it is an oil war that we have invented to grab some resources, not at all. Just that at a minimum we want to secure the supply that we were historically used to, and prevent a lengthy period of time where the world has lots of barrels of oil less per day to drink.

Our response to Gaddafi would be different if he had no oil, but its fruitless to speculate further because the whole nature and recent history of Libya would be different if they had no oil wealth, so whats the point even trying to imagine an oil-less Libya for bogus comparative purposes.

Or to put it another way, if you want to be an unpredictable leader who makes enemies, your chances of survival may be better if you dont have oil, at least as far as the external threat to the dictator goes. When it comes to the internal threat oil can obviously be of great benefit in buying off your people. And if you are a brutal dictator but you know how to be a 'reliable partner' to powerful nations of the world, then sitting on a load of oil can be a huge advantage. Gaddafi went through both of these phases, and was quite the survivor till now.

 

[Lo Siento.]

It is hard for me to understand what you are writing. Are you writing that if there was no oil in Libya there would be no UNSC no-fly zone?

There was no oil in the Balkans, yet we had a no-fly zone there.

there's no NFZ in Bahrain, and their bigger, stronger neighbour basically just invaded to prop up a dictatorship there.

 

[Lo Siento.]

AlJaz getting unconfirmed reports of Gadaffi's forces advancing on Bengasi, as close as 50km away.

 

[elbows]

there's no NFZ in Bahrain, and their bigger, stronger neighbour basically just invaded to prop up a dictatorship there.

I would suggest that events in Bahrain also made it a bit more likely we would do something in Libya, because action in Libya takes a fair bit of attention away from what is going on in Bahrain. And the more attention we can keep away from it the better, because it rather undermines the current stance that the Tories here and Obama have decided to take when it comes to propaganda about helping the people of the middle east find their dreams of freedom etc.

 

[elbows]

AlJaz getting unconfirmed reports of Gadaffi's forces advancing on Bengasi, as close as 50km away.

If confirmed then we may find out whether we really arent ready either militarily or politically to attack him tonight/early tomorrow, or whether we have deliberately created the impression that he still has some time to act in order to try to get him to rush into some kind of trap.

 

[Casually Red]

There is evidence of him using heavy weapons such as anti aircraft guns and recoilless rifles etc on demonstrators when they first broke out in Benghazi and other towns and he certainly used lethal fire against unarmed protesters right from the beginning

untrue , he most definitely and without doubt initially responded to the protests in a conciliatory fashion by releasing over 100 Libyan Islamic Fighting Group prisoners from jail . Arms dumps were then jubilantly looted and the monarchist flag unfurled after this apparent defeat and show of weakness . He then used legitimate military force against an armed uprising .

but stories of aircraft strafing unarmed demonstrators seem to be propaganda, like tales of mercenaries.

If you cast your mind back youll remember it was these mythical mercenaries who were actually supposed to be doing the shooting down of the "unarmed" protestors in the first place , combined with military airstrikes against them . How were people beinng killed by forces that didnt even exist ? It was all bullshit . There was civil unrest which saw arms dumps looted and Libyan government forces attacked . An armed uprising that immediately began a campaign of deliberate misinformation on a global scale alleging mythical atrocities by mythical forces in order to ensure western military intervention on its behalf .

But that hasn't stopped the stories being repeated by Western politicians like Cameron. Clearly there have been air attacks on armed rebels and on rebel controlled towns which probably hit civilians which whilst very brutal and militarily giving him the edge,is hardly bombing unarmed demonstrators for demonstrating. In short there is an awful lot of hype and propaganda around which is being used gleefully by those favouring Western intervention.

Whats actually happening is the western powers and their puppets in the Arab Lague are insisting that heavily armed and often undisciplined groups of armed combatants are actually civilians and peaceful protestors . The French are insisting a collection of disparate armed groups confined to a corner of Libya , who even the western powers themselves admit have backgrounds and agendas that are extremely unclear, are the Libyan people and the legitimate government of Libya . Such a claim is preposterous . This is nothing more than imperialism and colonialism in action , the new world order , the great game . Its a campaign of imperialist aggression against the Libyan nation and its legitimate sovereign government .

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Colonel Gadaffi is "conciliatory", firing on civilians is "legitimate", and it's all a "a campaign of deliberate misinformation on a global scale"... it's a funny old you live in...

 

[Casually Red]

This isn't about oil. BP already has a major contract with the Gaddafi regime, it would suit them better if Gaddafi remained in power and their contract could continue normally. This is about a democratic revolt by the Libyan people being put down brutally by the Gaddafi regime and our siding with the forces of democratic reform.

your own western states openly admit they either have absolutely no idea or have grave concerns as to what the black-lynching Libyan oppositions agenda is or what their background is . You apparently seem to have inside info on them they say they dont possess . You should get on to them quickly and enlighten them with your amazing insights .

 

[Casually Red]

Colonel Gadaffi is "conciliatory", firing on civilians is "legitimate", and it's all a "a campaign of deliberate misinformation on a global scale"... it's a funny old you live in...

if you wish to dispute the fact he released over 100 prisoners then do so with sources . If you wish to dispute the fact the airplanes and mercenaries firing on unarmed civilians never existed in the first place then back that up . If you wish to dispute the fact the western media claimed that all of this actually happened when it patently did not then make the case how they didnt . If you wish to dispute the fact a group of people armed to the teeth and firing at anything that moves or wildly into the air arent actually civilians but armed combatants then make a case to back that up .
Sadly I live in a world which creates hysterical scenarios such as Ive already outlined in order to justify imperialist aggression . You seem to think we dont . But your not making any type of case whatsoever to show otherwise . Just making inane sarky comments without any attempt to address the actual issue .

 

[weltweit]

your own western states openly admit they either have absolutely no idea or have grave concerns as to what the black-lynching Libyan oppositions agenda is or what their background is . You apparently seem to have inside info on them they say they dont possess . You should get on to them quickly and enlighten them with your amazing insights .

Who is saying there is black lynching going on? you?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

if you wish to dispute the fact he released over 100 prisoners then do so with sources . If you wish to dispute the fact the airplanes and mercenaries firing on unarmed civilians never existed in the first place then back that up . If you wish to dispute the fact the western media claimed that all of this actually happened when it patently did not then make the case how they didnt . If you wish to dispute the fact a group of people armed to the teeth and firing at anything that moves or wildly into the air arent actually civilians but armed combatants then make a case to back that up .
Sadly I live in a world which creates hysterical scenarios such as Ive already outlined in order to justify imperialist aggression . You seem to think we dont . But your not making any type of case whatsoever to show otherwise . Just making inane sarky comments without any attempt to address the actual issue .

All these issues have been addressed again and again in this thread. Debating with you is about as illuminating as talking to an old Stanlist about the USSR. It is 2 + 2 = 5

 

[paolo]

[Live on News 24] Some suggestion from the govt. rep that they will pull back from Bengahzi if observers say so.

Anyone catch which countries Libyan govt invited?