The USA Position on Libya

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 2:56 pm

spot;1360608 wrote: I don't understand your argument. The humanitarian concern is that fewer people die, fewer people suffer, national employment isn't handicapped, the universities still open, trade continues. All of that is measurably worse because NATO intervened. I say they intervened for their own selfish interest rather than to help anyone inside Libya but that's a secondary matter. You dislike Gaddafi, that's reasonable on your part, so does Robert Fisk. I think you should be able to see past that dislike to my core complaint, that life for most Libyans is worse now than it would have been without the foreign intervention and that it will stay that way for years - quite likely for the next generation, the next couple of decades.

What you're watching is the naked rape of a nation by profiteers. It's unseemly that you should applaud.On the other hand, your position could be interpreted as to tolerate the status-quo because what little is had should be good enough to endure oppression. The idea of advancing the group may be the need of sacrificing oneself and even a generation for long term survival and advancement.

In the mind of the capitalist, profit motives may be the be all to a better life.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:00 pm

spot;1360614 wrote: Speaking solely for myself, and aware that Robert Fisk knows far more than I do and would disagree, I have respect for Colonel Gaddafi. I appreciate what he's done for his country, I regret the uprising and I feel he deserves a better conclusion to his lifetime of service. I certainly despise the opportunist vulture politicians and civil servants of the UK and France who have seized their moment to rip his country apart in order to extract its wealth.What about the other more violent actions of Gaddafi? What if Gaddafi's time is over and most see that but he refuses to step aside to allow his country to take it's next step?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:02 pm

If I felt Gaddafi's rule had been on balance oppressive as opposed to beneficial, I might find the situation less clear. I certainly don't trust the Western propaganda which vilified the chap ever since he established the revolution, and which went into overdrive this year.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:37 pm

You don't have to listen to Westerners about how bad Gaddafi is, you only need listen to the Libyans who now live in areas where they can say whatever they want without fear of being killed for their opinions. They and surrounding countries who have also seen Gaddafi's "socialism" up close are unilaterally saying he is horrid and needs to leave.

It is vain and abhorrent to put your own, scholarly, point of view on a higher level of worth than the people who have to live in Gaddafi's little experiment. So sorry it didn't work out the way you wanted, spot. As it turns out, Gaddafi screwed up.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:41 pm

Whatever he did is less wrong than destroying a country's sovereignty. Either countries sort out their own internal affairs or we're back to the days of building empires again. That was undeniably destructive both of the client nations and of the first world.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:46 pm

They haven't destroyed sovereignty! They've recognised the interim government and are consulting with them about their needs and actions. Libya has a new government but that government can't take it's place in Tripoli until Gaddafi leaves.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:47 pm

What i think is happening is the world is trying to become one big country. This is group selection at work.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 3:51 pm

koan;1360621 wrote: They haven't destroyed sovereignty! They've recognised the interim government and are consulting with them about their needs and actions. Libya has a new government but that government can't take it's place in Tripoli until Gaddafi leaves. That's exactly like saying the US didn't destroy sovereignty in Iraq by "liberating" it, or in Afghanistan by ousting the legal government in exactly the way NATO is treating Libya. It's empire building at the cost of sovereignty. It's an interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations. You can't possibly pretend that bunch of stone-throwers was the recognized government of Libya at the point where NATO intervened, or that the UN mandated the destruction of Libya's armed forces.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 4:58 pm

It's not the same. They didn't take over a country, destroy the current government then arrange elections after. They've recognized an interim government formed by the rebels prior to destroying the old government. They've engaged in military support to that alternate government at the request of said alternate government.

It's nothing alike.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:20 pm

You don't have to listen to Westerners about how bad Gaddafi is, you only need listen to the Libyans who now live in areas where they can say whatever they want without fear of being killed for their opinions. They and surrounding countries who have also seen Gaddafi's "socialism" up close are unilaterally saying he is horrid and needs to leave.

I've talked to more than one and actually it's about 50/50. There's a substantial number of people who support Ghadaffi. My Egyptian neighbor does not. The Algerian family at my garden are certainly for him, the husband is from Libya, were it not for his children being born here he would have went back long ago. He is old and remembers what it was like BEFORE Ghadaffi came to power. Also on the internet there are many people from the ME that are not for this intervention. My wife is not, Ghadaffi was a major contributor to the Red Cresent and World Vision. I wonder who amongst the oil companies and contractors that will rebuild this country is going to step up to the plate.

The fact that the popular western media is wholly against Ghadaffi with all but no exceptions is clouding peoples minds. If you look you can find material on Libya and what he has done in the time he has been in power I dare to say Libyans would still be in the dark ages without him. Still scrabbling over scrap metal from WWII in the desert to make a living.

I swear you're using doublethink Koan, it's not like you. If you're going to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs. Not everybody there is happy, it can never be that way. It never will. In the end I believe we will find that little has changed. In fact it may be worse. Capitalism has a way of doing things like that.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Put some time into research.

Libya: a tale of two strategies | Global Water Intelligence - Archive: Global Water Intelligence

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:27 pm

The only double think I'm employing is my own intuition that this is what the people of the region want, double checked by listening to Al Jazeera live streamed news channel all day. The second "think" confirms the first.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:49 pm

Let me also explain that I'm not concerned about whether or not the forces helping the Libyan people have an ulterior motive. If I'm a beaten wife and a women's society helps me under the condition I do an interview to say how helpful they were and how much the society needs donations... I'd do the interview. There are few examples of altruism in the world. If needy people get help, it's worth it. Bob Geldof got knighted. You think he didn't have that kind of goal in mind when he started Live Aid?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue May 31, 2011 8:33 am

The only double think I'm employing is my own intuition that this is what the people of the region want

Not everyone wants the same thing. Not everyone wants Gadhaffi gone. He still has troops fighting all over that country for him and what he stands for. My intuition tells me this isn't about a beaten wife, it's about having more than one and the junior wife thinks she can do everything better and she's willing to burn down not just the house but the whole village to get her way.

Let me also explain that I'm not concerned about whether or not the forces helping the Libyan people have an ulterior motive.

You should be, ulterior motives have cost humanity hundreds of millions of innocents. I'm not one to endorse any status quo in any society but there are concepts such as bad and worse. Stalin and his system was bad, the alternative was far worse. Left alone I think with the passing of Ghadaffi from power his youngest son Saife would have taken over and if you look that guy up you'd find he was a very bright, educated and progressive individual. He's dead now.

If it's not broke don't fix it.

I can't believe you're siding the likes of Sarkozy in this either. His motives are the most self serving in this whole skunk pile.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 31, 2011 8:44 am

The "status quo" in the Middle East is that the young people are rising up and taking back control of their lives. Sitting back and accepting Gaddafi as their fate was just not going to happen. NATO didn't start that.

I'm no sadder for the death of one person than I am for another. Gaddafi didn't hesitate to kill other people's sons when they got in his way. He could blame NATO, The US, Allah, or anyone else he wants but ultimately it's his choice of lifestyle that puts all near him in danger. It's obviously something he thought was worth the risk. Someone who marries into the mafia can't well complain when they get their baby finger cut off and mailed to their spouse.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue May 31, 2011 9:04 am

A good opinion from London.

YouTube - ‪'NATO desperate, sinking deeper in Libya war swamp'‬‏

Someone who marries into the mafia can't well complain when they get their baby finger cut off and mailed to their spouse.

Same goes for the rebels and their leaders. Unless you have neighbors that need to look good in the news. This would have been over long ago at nowhere near the cost in lives.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 31, 2011 9:12 am

Scrat;1360686 wrote: A good opinion from London.

YouTube - ‪'NATO desperate, sinking deeper in Libya war swamp'‬‏

Bad for the "West"... that's not my main concern either. His other comments re whether Gaddafi killed as many people goes along with your next bit:

Same goes for the rebels and their leaders. Unless you have neighbors that need to look good in the news. This would have been over long ago at nowhere near the cost in lives.
Definitely would have been over long ago and Gaddafi would remain in power. He would have killed fewer people but the ones left living would still be living under Gaddafi... which is what they don't want.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:49 pm

So you're saying that no Libyans want to live under Ghadaffis rule? Not a single one? The fact that loyalists are still fighting tell me different. Of course "those" people don't matter now and might not matter in the end unless they decide to go on fighting with him gone. Of course it will be just fine to shoot them too if that comes to pass.

None of this makes any sense.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:57 pm

It would be daft of me to say that not a single Libyan wants Gaddafi. What a simplistic strawman. There's not a single thing I've said that indicates that possibility crossed my mind.

If the rebels are the majority then the modern world should support their wishes. If the rebels are the minority then Gaddafi's Green Book claims their point of view is more valuable than the majority. So, either way, helping them is legitimately in the best interest of the Libyan people. If not by majority, then by Gaddafi's own philosophy.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue May 31, 2011 10:11 pm

We can debate this all day Koan but it's really getting us nowhere. With all due respect I do think your stance and this whole thing is wrong.

Here's something we all should consider in this. From the Asia Times, a very interesting article.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:03 am

Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya’s $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment - Agustino Fontevecchia - Moral Hazard - Forbes

Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya’s $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment

Reality is always more undelieveable than any novel. If you look at what's happened since 911 were it a novel you would throw it away part read as being too preposterous.

Foreign policy where the only consideration is short term gain has never been successful. The european empires were motivated by greed and a sense of superiority and invaded countries in the bname of free trade. Anything really changed?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:54 pm

May I add There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest to the thread as a counterbalance to the anti-Gaddafi sentiment it started out with? There's nothing in particular I'd like to select out of it, the article's primarily an assemblage of world press cuttings with commentary. It does scoff at the notion the initial civil outbreaks had anything to do with "Arab Spring Democracy" though.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:51 am

It would be interesting to see hiow much aid the oil rich arab countries are willing to give their non oil producing neighbours to develop their economies.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:45 pm

We still think this all-out mass slaughter is pro-democracy Arab Spring stuff, do we? As opposed to regime change paid for by Western governments?

There must be tens of thousands dead by now. I notice nobody's keeping score.

It's a disgrace that a country like Libya, with pretty much the highest standard of living in Africa, should be put to the sword and impoverished for decades to benefit foreign commercial interests. Turning a nation into a subservient cloned client state isn't in the interest of that nation's citizens.

The BBC today disagrees with al Jazeera:

BBC version: "The military commander of the Libyan rebels fighting to topple Col Muammar Gaddafi has been killed, the rebel National Transitional Council says. NTC head Mustafa Abdul-Jalil said Gen Abdel Fattah Younes was killed by pro-Gaddafi assailants, and the head of the group responsible had been arrested."

al Jazeera version: "Abdul Jalil called Younes "one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution," a name marking the date of early protests against Gaddafi's regime. While he criticised Gaddafi for seeking to break the unity of rebel forces, he did not say directly that Younes' killers were associated with the regime. Instead, he issued a stiff warning about "armed groups" in rebel-held cities, saying they needed to join the fight against Gaddafi or risk being arrested by security forces."

Both news sites agree that the General had been arrested by the rebels' National Transitional Council before the killing happened. Al Jazeera concluded its piece with "There were reports of gunfire outside the hotel in Benghazi following the press conference". And these rebel bandits battling each other for control of the potential loot are meant to be the great white democratic hope, are they? I reckon if they're only ten crooks for every idealist they're better supplied with idealism than I'd give them credit for.

Long live Colonel Gaddafi's Revolution, that's what I say. Because the longer he shows up Western hypocrisy the better, and the less likely these cold-blooded killer politicians in NATO will be to try the same game elsewhere may they rot. As for the lamented General, I don't believe there's a General alive on the planet who wouldn't leave it a cleaner place were he to cut his own throat tonight.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:29 pm

Here we are - slightly more detail:The credibility of the British-backed rebel forces in Libya has been thrown into doubt after the shock assassination of a top military commander led to claims that the movement is enmeshed in a bloody internal feud.

Increasing evidence has begun to emerge that the savage killings of General Abdel Fatah Younes and two other senior officers – who were shot and whose bodies were burnt – may have been carried out by their own side. The news of the deaths led to outbreaks of violence in the opposition capital, Benghazi, yesterday, with troops loyal to the General and members of the large and powerful tribe to which he belonged, the Obeidis, vowing retribution.

The killings came at a difficult time for David Cameron's government, which just a day earlier had formally recognised the rebel Transitional National Council (TNC) as the representatives of the Libyan state and ordered diplomats of the Tripoli regime to leave the UK. In a speech offering unreserved praise, the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, had praised the rebels' "increasing legitimacy, competence and success."

Major Younes is believed to have been under arrest on the orders of the chairman of the TNC, Mustafa Abdul Jalil – a former justice minister under Col Gaddafi – at the time of his death on Thursday evening.

Rebel feud puts UK's Libya policy in jeopardy - Africa, World - The Independent

So. The General was under arrest at the time of his death, killed by the troops sent to arrest him, the troops sent by order of the Chairman of the rebel Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil? And he's the chap who said yesterday that the General was "killed by pro-Gaddafi assailants, and the head of the group responsible had been arrested"?

Perhaps the Chairman of the rebel Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, is due for a few days' interrogation by his own torturers. Security officers, excuse me.

And these immoral opportunists are paid from British Government funds by William Hague? Shame on you, sir.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:25 am

Would one not have thought NATO, if it had a genuine interest in nurturing democracy throughout the Middle East, would have targeted the Monarchies rather than the Secular Republics? I don't think one can sustain a believable argument that democracy is a NATO ambition in all of this. Preventing Libya's oil from making its way predominantly to China, yes, that one might believe.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:10 pm

spot;1363583 wrote: Would one not have thought NATO, if it had a genuine interest in nurturing democracy throughout the Middle East, would have targeted the Monarchies rather than the Secular Republics? I don't think one can sustain a believable argument that democracy is a NATO ambition in all of this. Preventing Libya's oil from making its way predominantly to China, yes, that one might believe.

Do you not think that perhaps you credit them with too much intelligence when you assume they have actually thought about it? Not to worry another five years or so and we won't have any RAF or navy left to attack anybody, just in time for Argentina to invade the falklands again. Foreign wars are bankrupting america ultimately that will be what decides America's position on libya. Saudi Arabia will end up the most powerful country in the middle east with no one able to control them. Israel will fall when the financial support from Washington dries up.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:35 pm

I'd rather have all that than what's going on at the moment.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:22 pm

All I can say is after almost 6 months of what is basically a civil war between tribes the people of Libya are still paying the price. Is there any good information about the civilian casualties in this so far? What's the cost of this "support" mission so far?

As for the general I could care less about him. This should tell you who were dealing with. As I said this is nothing more than a power grab by aspiring despots and thugs.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:23 am

This is exactly what I feared. Watching a lot of videos from the conflict I saw certain patterns. Different groups of rebels dressing different from others, one wearing black hats and riding in black trucks with certain words written on them. Another wearing a certain kind of jacket with a red and white head band riding in trucks painted white.

That general was assassinated, I don't care what anybody says. I expect to see more of this to come as each group jockeys for position. Their leaders care only for one thing and it's not about freedom for the people of Libya. Like it or not Quadaffi was a jerk. But he did it for a reason. Libya WAS the most prosperous country in Africa. He wanted to unite Africa into a coalition of countries working together and prospering, something the west simply couldn't allow to happen.

Perhaps Quadaffi has been weakened to the point now that he can't strike back effectively and these groups either want him gone or their sponsors (we know who that is) still want him gone but when that is done I think the power struggles will start for real. The dying isn't over yet people. It may not stop for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/world ... s&emc=tha2

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:52 pm

I think people need to make up their minds.

Either sovereign countries exist or they don't. If they exist then they have by definition their own foreign policy, their own internal laws and their own financial responsibility. They are not mere outposts of some colonial puppet-masters in Langley VA.

If, on the other hand, no such independence exists then the citizens of those satraps must be allowed citizenship of the greater whole. Travel rights and work rights and equal civil rights to everyone else within the Empire. Their own elected representation in Washington DC.

Stop this double standard. If Libya is a sovereign nation, stop fomenting rebellion. Declare the existence of your subversion fund, revoke it, apologize and go home. What Libya had was far more in Libya's interests than what you're trying to replace it with.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:23 pm

Such high ideals as sovereignty and human rights are largely given lip service and dismissed or placed aside when convenient, we both know that Spot. They're just words.

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:30 pm

Scrat;1365484 wrote: Such high ideals as sovereignty and human rights are largely given lip service and dismissed or placed aside when convenient, we both know that Spot. They're just words.

Sovereignty was the essence of diplomacy in the 19th century before the world abandoned the civilized intercourse of nations.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:39 am

Looks as if the game is almost over. Tripoli is all but surrounded and now there is apparently fighting in the city itself. Information is hard to come by but the writing is on the wall. His forces can't keep supplies moving so it's just a matter of time. Either Q is going to die there or he's going to make a run for it. I think it will be the former.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/world ... s&emc=tha2

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:55 am

The Intervention Into Libya Is hypocritical In the extreme.

Why did NATO but not the UN Intervene to save Kosovans In 1999 ?

Muslim Kosovans were engaged in a battle for independence from socialist Yugoslavia. Why not coordinate with the UN Security Council? This is what the US did in 1990, to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:04 pm

Scrat;1366422 wrote: Looks as if the game is almost over. Tripoli is all but surrounded and now there is apparently fighting in the city itself. Information is hard to come by but the writing is on the wall. His forces can't keep supplies moving so it's just a matter of time. Either Q is going to die there or he's going to make a run for it. I think it will be the former.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/world ... s&emc=tha2

Why at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radio-active budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and Increasingly opposed to the war would the US government spend enormous amounts of money to fight this war?

Why Is Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations, even from his own Party that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures so publicly by NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war? And why would you, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- Including your close allies In Bahrain, Yemen and Syria and the one in Syria engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:33 pm

oscar;1366456 wrote: Why at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radio-active budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and Increasingly opposed to the war would the US government spend enormous amounts of money to fight this war?

Why Is Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations, even from his own Party that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures so publicly by NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war?What makes you think this is an American war?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:43 pm

Ghspot;1365202 wrote: I think people need to make up their minds.

Either sovereign countries exist or they don't. If they exist then they have by definition their own foreign policy, their own internal laws and their own financial responsibility. They are not mere outposts of some colonial puppet-masters in Langley VA.

If, on the other hand, no such independence exists then the citizens of those satraps must be allowed citizenship of the greater whole. Travel rights and work rights and equal civil rights to everyone else within the Empire. Their own elected representation in Washington DC.

Stop this double standard. If Libya is a sovereign nation, stop fomenting rebellion. Declare the existence of your subversion fund, revoke it, apologize and go home. What Libya had was far more in Libya's interests than what you're trying to replace it with.Libya's military was built on the backs of it's people, and now that military is being used to prevent change at the top. I see nothing wrong with toppling a dictator who suppress the people of a country. Ghadaffi took their money and are now using it against them. Supporting this kind of uprising does not bother me in the least.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:49 pm

Apparently it's all over but the hanging. I hope these groups don't go at one an-others throats when it gets down to who wants power.

Libya: Rebels In Tripoli As Gaddafi Regime Appears To Crumble And Celebrations Take Place In Capital | World News | Sky News

Libya's military was built on the backs of it's people, and now that military is being used to prevent change at the top. I see nothing wrong with toppling a dictator who suppress the people of a country. Ghadaffi took their money and are now using it against them. Supporting this kind of uprising does not bother me in the least.

You don't seem that well informed about what his government did for his people. There was good and bad and I hope what comes next isn't worse.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:01 pm

Scrat;1366593 wrote: Apparently it's all over but the hanging. I hope these groups don't go at one an-others throats when it gets down to who wants power.

Libya: Rebels In Tripoli As Gaddafi Regime Appears To Crumble And Celebrations Take Place In Capital | World News | Sky News

You don't seem that well informed about what his government did for his people. There was good and bad and I hope what comes next isn't worse. I thought Libya was a Sovereign Country?

Isn't over-throwing Col. Gaddafi outside the scope of the UN objective?

Nobody can reasonablly claim that Libya has attacked or poses a serious threat to the United States directly or to it’s National Security. What is Obama’s legal or constitutional justification to go to war and bomb a sovereign nation that has not attacked the US nor poses a serious threat, without a congressional declaration of war?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:15 pm

Sovereignty threats or claims by whoever none of that matters Oscar. Last report was there is fighting in parts of Tripoli. The situation is becoming chaotic.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:29 pm

Chatting with the wife who is in Amman Jordan, the local news there is saying Qaddaffi ordered all of his troops to surrender some hours ago. His whereabouts are unknown.

Her post.

Al Fahiya news here. Qadaffi ordered his troops to return to the barracks and surrender. Three sons captured, most of Tripoli in rebel hands. Few areas are in loyalist hands but the whole regime has collapsed. There is one street where there are snipers according to reports. The area near Rixos was still in govt control recently but looters arrived so probably is no longer.

Also the annoying spokesman's house is now surrounded. Where Qadaffi???

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:24 am

He's presumably in South Africa with an offer of asylum.

NATO, meanwhile, has acquired a colony.

I insist on the publication of a reliable count of all the dead since NATO began bombing.

If the "annoying spokesman" was Moussa Ibrahim, I thought he did a good job , I hope he's safe.

Post by **spot** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:05 am

So, to summarize yesterday.

The Libyan government said it was handing automatic weapons and lots of ammunition to everyone in Tripoli and the Benghazi rebels said nonsense, the people hate Gaddafi, it's a con trick, the people of Tripoli would rebel against him too if they were armed.

Then the Benghazi rebels drove into Tripoli or landed from ships and held a rally in a square, after which wherever they drove they were shot at from apartment windows by the people of Tripoli armed with automatic weapons and lots of ammunition. After which all the rebels ran out into the desert and said they'd wait for orders.

What next, NATO? Are you going to bomb armed civilians in their apartment blocks? Or did your UN mandate order you to defend Libyan civilians, armed or otherwise.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:34 am

spot;1366780 wrote: So, to summarize yesterday.

The Libyan government said it was handing automatic weapons and lots of ammunition to everyone in Tripoli and the Benghazi rebels said nonsense, the people hate Gaddafi, it's a con trick, the people of Tripoli would rebel against him too if they were armed.

Then the Benghazi rebels drove into Tripoli or landed from ships and held a rally in a square, after which wherever they drove they were shot at from apartment windows by the people of Tripoli armed with automatic weapons and lots of ammunition. After which all the rebels ran out into the desert and said they'd wait for orders.

What next, NATO? Are you going to bomb armed civilians in their apartment blocks? Or did your UN mandate order you to defend Libyan civilians, armed or otherwise.

Follow the money

Libya's frozen assets may soon be released - CBS News

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:22 am

What is the UK or EU (or whatever you folks are these days) position on Libya?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:05 am

flopstock;1366800 wrote: What is the UK or EU (or whatever you folks are these days) position on Libya?

Italy and spain are hoping trade links start again. France and britain are pretty obviously after the oil. Odds are libyas frozen assets will somehow disappear. (funny how they couldn;t stop saudi banks from funding al qaeda) So many fingers in the pie so much scope for a complete balls up.

Post by **spot** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:22 am

flopstock;1366800 wrote: What is the UK or EU (or whatever you folks are these days) position on Libya?

The keyword really is NATO. All NATO member states are capable of influencing what's going on since providing air superiority and clearing roads for the Benghazi rebels is a NATO operation. The largest contributors to NATO are France, the UK and US.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:28 pm

What is the UK or EU (or whatever you folks are these days) position on Libya

I can't really see what position NATO is in, I assume it too be standing as the gun pointed through the curtain behind the aspiring Libyan leadership is in about the right position for someone standing.

Anyway, Where's Qadaffi?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:44 pm

I suppose we are going to be subjected to the same revolting spectacle of the Sadam capture? His no doubt Impending death posted on you tube with allied forces claiming all the credit of the 'freedom' of Libya.

Already we are seeing a repeat of the Invasion of Iraq. Opposition looting and storming the leaders palaces, dancing In the streets, stamping on statues In victorious shows of glee etc.