BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:56 AM

Well, some of Gadhafi's commanders are still able to plan and carry out strategic military missions. Score another one for their side.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:46 AM

Gaddafi is now using helicopters with Red Cross and Red Crescent markings to drop mines into the harbour of Misurata, which is clearly against international law. He also dropped bombs from small planes and destroyed Misurata's fuel supply. I say it's time for the US to get back into the fray and finish the bastard off.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/05/201157112432539341.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:35 PM

Trump 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:43 AM

GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:35 AM

The Arab League supported the idea - but none of its members have provided any actual assistance (too busy in some cases suppressing their own dissidents, or in the case of Saudi Arabia, the dissidents in its neighbour Bahrain).

The African Union has been busy trying to broker a ceasefire without preconditions, which has been rejected by the Benghazi and by Britain and France etc.

"The initials GCC may have different meanings in various fields"

But I think "Western arrogance" in this context isn't too helpful. The point is, there is a practical as well as principled limit to what can be done to intervene in other countries to prevent injustice. And there is always a very real danger that "striving to better oft we mar what's well" - or make bad things even worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:05 AM

"Western arrogance"

The resolution to come to the aid of the citizens of Libya was made by the UN security council with the support of the Arab League, the African Union and the GCC.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 07:53 AM

"...And please, Lizzie, spare us the canned drivel about "Western arrogance".    After a while breast-beating leftist tripe starts to get old.

The rebels begged--over and over--for our assistance....."


Strange that other rebels in other countries are apparently mute, or maybe it's just that we're deaf to their cries...OR, maybe it's other reasons, eh, Ron?

Come ON, Mugabe's been killing his people for years, but we entertain him on official visits! If he had oil of course, we might just sit up and listen...

I heard last night that over 300 people in one city have been killed, and whilst ANY person killed is a tragedy, other dictators kill hundreds of thousands of their people, yet we do NOTHING, not a damn thing.

I'm not a leftist, by the way....I'm not an anythingist, just a woman who has her eyes open, thinks differently to you and sees through all the political crap going down around me.

The West IS arrogant, I'm afraid and seems to think it should meddle in all affairs where there is something to be gained, yet turns a blind eye to all other affairs which do not directly benefit their political and corporate masters.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 07:32 AM

"If it is legitimate for the US (etc) to interfere in Libya, then it is legitimate for other powers to interfere in the US (etc)."

If the US were waging war against it's citizenry then I should hope that "other powers" would intervene.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 02:35 AM

Bobad - think about it. Rulers rule.

Ron, think about it. There are plenty in the USA or UK who might beg for the assistance of a foreign power to dethrone our own kleptocracies. Goose, gander?

If it is legitimate for the US (etc) to interfere in Libya, then it is legitimate for other powers to interfere in the US (etc).

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 10:51 PM

And please, Lizzie, spare us the canned drivel about "Western arrogance".    After a while breast-beating leftist tripe starts to get old.

The rebels begged--over and over--for our assistance.

Yet again--they do not want Western ground troops--which is fine with us.   They have told us what they do want, and we should comply.

There will be no Western "occupation"--since no party wants one, with the possible exception of Col. Gaddafi, since that's the only thing which could possibly unify Libyans behind him.

The idea of "occupation" of Libya is a self-inflicted Leftist nightmare, with no basis in reality.

But if it makes you happy to agonize about an absurd idea, by all means have at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 06:53 PM

So, you think it is the prerogative of governments to slaughter unarmed citizens for protesting against their government, which is how the rebellion started in Libya, lest you forget. Well I, for one, am grateful that the world has finally learned the lessons of genocide in places like Srebrenica and Rwanda and has said it will no longer stand by while maniacal dictators slaughter their populations. As much as you might admire the bastard Gaddafi the people of Libya appear to have a different opinion of him and are willing to die to be free of his tyranny and with the world's help I hope they will be successful. Power to the people!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 05:51 PM

"Gentlemen, lest we get carried away with our own rhetoric, NATO's mission is NOT to help the rebels. It's mission is to help protect civilians"

Bruce, I haven't laughed so much in ages.


Like it or not, Gadaffi's government WAS the Libyan government. People rebelled. He used force. That is the prerogative of government.

It was a military operation against a rebel force. Nothing at all to do with the UN.

The Americo-UN activity is, quite simply, interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

And while the Gadaffi regime may have been a kleptocracy, it provided more trickle-down benefits for its people than Ronnie Raygun, the Shrub, and Milk-Snatcher combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 02:48 PM

Thanks for the good wishes, Ron.

I'm not intending to misrepresent your position. What I'm concerned about is the process that is referred to as "mission drift" - what starts as minimal intervention builds into full scale involvement, because minimal intervention just won't do the job.

There is no process by which the rebel administration in Benghazi can be recognised as "the only legitimate government in Libya" except a vote by the Security Council to that effect. And that is not going to happen.

This means that the level and nature of the intervention is severely restricted. Going further than those limitations would involve an effective breach with the UN, as happened in the case of Iraq.

"More timely support from the air" - there are real limits on how effective air support can be in countering ground troops who are not using heavy transport and heavy weapons, but using mortars and hand held guns. I doubt if frozen funds are a major problem in the short run. Similarly supplying arms and even training for rebel troops is not going to tun them into an effective fighting force with any prospect of defeating the Tripoli based army for quite some time. I doubt if it would make much difference at this point.

A ceasefire without preconditions and an attempt to negotiate seems to me the only realistic way of stopping the killing. And if it turned put to be temporary, with the fighting starting again, I think it likely that this would very likely actually put the rebels in a stronger military position.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

And "occupation" is the last thing the Western powers want.

As anybody who could--and was willing to-- read could easily see.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 01:30 PM

It's great to have you back, Kevin, after your serious medical issues.   And I understand that you do not want to have your position on this thread misrepresented.

However for some reason you seem to think it's just fine to misrepresent mine--"Invasion". .

If you would actually take the time to read the thread, instead of making false comparisons (Vietnam, Iraq) you would find that I have clearly differentiated between the trumped-up Iraq invasion, and helping the rebels in Libya (who include quite a few of Gadhafi's own military. ) After having clearly rejected Gadhafit, they have asked many times for our help. Perhaps you haven't noticed this--though it has been in the news many times. Can't understand how you have missed it.

I only advocate what the provisional government in Benghazi is asking.   They have made it clear they want no Western ground troops.   And we must abide by that--nor do we even want to put in ground troops, you may possibly have noticed.

The Benghazi government does not want a Western "invasion".   Nor do we. What's more , I think you realize this, but choose for your own reasons to disregard it.

They do want Western governments to recognize them as the only legitimate government in Libya.   And to release to them at least some of the frozen funds.    And to provide more timely support from the air.
   
We should do all these things.

And a far more applicable comparison than Vietnam is 1938 Germany.    Dissidents in Germany then reached out to France and the UK, and were rebuffed.   

This was a huge mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 08:10 AM

I just heard someone from the MoD on BBC Radio Devon News saying that it's all become very tricky in Libya and now 'they've got themselves into a difficult situation which is not going to be easy to get out of'

Well, well, who'd a thought it, eh?

Did they honestly think he was just going to pack his TinyTim bag and various hat boxes and tiptoe through the tulips to another place? Did they seriously think that a totally untrained crowd of, so often, hysterical men would be able to defeat a tyrant such as Gadaffi, when his army was still loyal to him?

This already is a major disaster and it's going to get one helluva lot worse, probably end up involving other countries too as The Jihad Camel starts its lonesome trek into the hot desert sun...picking up many followers in its noonday shadow.

Oh, brother, have we stirred up a scarab's nest with our continuous Western Arrogance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:54 PM

You all seem to ignore the RTP norm, I guess civilian lives are expendable....too bad that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 12:25 PM

The trouble is, the logic of Ron's position is invasion and occupation, in the expectation that a free election might go the wrong way. There's an analogy with the position summed up by Eisenhaower in relation to the reason elections could not be held in Vietnam "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh".

And that bit of realpolitick didn't work out too well.

And invasion and occupation, even if successful, would have to be done on the same illegal basis as in Iraq. Not an encouraging precedent either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 09:03 AM

Sorry , Kevin that I was so aggressive in my last post.    But you must imagine that because in your world of sweetness and light everybody plays by Marquess of Queensberry rules, that tyrants will also. Specifically that Gadhafi will. I'm afraid this is a bit naive.

First of all, he may well (with about $6 billiion still in Libya), have enough to buy the election.

Secondly, consider his track record. He has a long history of sending assassination squads all over the world to dispose of dissidents.   What makes you think he would let dissidents still in Libya survive?

And look at what else his wonderful family has done to show their tolerance and good intentions.

Item:    When Hannibal Gadhafi, a son, was arrested by Swiss police in 2009 for battery, what was Gadhafi's reaction?    At the G-8 summit he publicly called for the dissolution of Switzerland, its territory to be divided between France, Italy and Germany. (Time 25 Sept 2009)

In August 2009, Hannibal Gadhafi stated that if he had a nuclear bomb: "I would wipe Switzerland off the map".

As late as 2004, Gadhafi still had bounties on critics, including $1 million for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist (Guardian 28 Mar 2004).


There was a warming of relations between Gadhafi and the West later, but with the recent moves by the West against him, it seems more than a bit likely, to say the least, that he will return to 2004-style attitudes.

He also, among other things, has said that HIV is a "peaceful virus, not an aggressive virus"


Neither he nor any member of his family can be trusted--and most , including the Brother Leader himself, do not appear to be playing with a full deck.



Furthermore, suppose your election were held and Gadhafi was considered to have won fair and square according to your election observers.

Then what?    I'm sure you'd insist on unfreezing the $50 billion or so now frozen. (And of course there would be new oil money coming in.)

And what do you think he'd do with the money?    Devote it to the welfare of his citizens?

Consider again his track record.   He would have no incentive to curry favor with the West. In the past he has sought several times to get nuclear weapons.   And he would have the incentive--and money--to do so.

Introducing yet another element of tension into the Mideast.    And with his well-known views on Israel, Israel would probably feel compelled to take out his nuclear sites--before it became impossible to do so.

No, for a huge list of reasons, he and his family cannot play any role in any future Libyan government.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 07:29 AM

It is being reported that Gaddafi's forces are using cluster bombs in civilian areas in Misurata.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141591544963774.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 03:57 PM

View from the Guardian
Its all about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 12:11 PM

It may be perfectly reasonable for the rebels/insurgents/dissidents to have the overthrowal of Gaddafi as an objective in making war, but that's different from making it a pre-condition for a ceasefire, rather than a fair election which enables the people of Libya to get rid of him, if that is what they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM

Ah..... but what the fuck has it to do with a bankrupt second rate nation like ours.......We punish the poorest for the crimes of the capitalist system, yet find the money to slaughter young men who are just doing their job being soldiers.

They never see us, just a rumble of aircraft engines far out of range.....like shooting fish in a barrel really ....not really war at all, never getting our hands bloody....never even having to engage our brains.....just like a video game played with real flesh and blood.....barbecued!

You say the insurgents are correct, but you have no more idea what their real agenda is than I have.
Even the Americans have said they believe there are links to Islamic fundamentalism and I think that is more than likely.
Of course there will be young people who are fooled by the facade of "Western style democracy", but the Mullahs will soon decapitate these boys when the time comes.....at the moment they must pay lip service to "democracy" to obtain the slaughtering capacity of the three most warmongering nations in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 12:31 AM

Tell me Kevin what post in the "Government" of Libya does Muammar Gadafi hold - What is his title? (He, himself says that he has none) When was the last time his name appeared on ANY ballot paper?

As long as Gaddafi is there, there can be no free and fair elections in Libya, irrespective of how many international observers and degree of oversight you put in place. Once the monitors leave that is when the blood-letting commences. If you want an example Kevin take a look at Zimbabwe.

The "Rebels" are perfectly correct in their demands Gaddafi must go - The Palestinians should have insisted on the same with regard to Yasser Arafat in 1971.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:41 AM

"Devotion to mass-murdering tyrants" - I haven't said anything said to justify that. He's a standard enough brutal ruler, probably no worse than many others whom we have also supplied with arms and friendship over the years, but quite bad enough. I'd be happy to see the back of him - but the point is, that's a matter for the people of Libya, and I haven't seen any evidence that they share my unfavourable views of the man and his regime.

I'd think it quite likely that a properly monitored election might get rid of Gaddafi, but I wouldn't bet on it. However I don't think it makes too much sense to put his departure in advance of that as a non-negotiable condition for a ceasefire, in a civil war of which the outcome is at very best extremely uncertain, and very possibly a lot worse than that. Offering a ceasefire on condition of properly monitored elections makes sense if only as a negotiating ploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 09:09 PM

Also try "Der ewige Jude", especially the opening.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 09:05 PM

Kevin, how long have you had this devotion to mass-murdering tyrants?

Is this a recent development?

It appears you'd be just fine with whatever treatment Gadhafi thought appropriate for the "rats".

Or will your election team remain in Libya forever to prevent Gadhafi's revenge?   Sorry, that's not really very practical.

Have you ever heard of the film "Jud Suess"?   You might want to read about it--and its uses.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:14 PM

1: "I'm surprised Teribus, that you appear to be supporting the insurgency here yet were totally against it in Iraq." - akenaton

Good parallel that. Only thing is your timing is off. The parallel to Iraq with the current insurgency in Libya is that the insurgency in Libya today is identical to the Shia uprising in Southern Iraq in 1991 when the USA did everything to encourage the uprising but did nothing to physically help. At the time I was fully behind that uprising as well - no conflict at all.

The Kurds in the North were luckier they had a border with a NATO country Turkey that allowed British Royal Marines of 45 Commando to enter Iraq and place themselves between the Kurds and SAddam Hussein's Army, otherwise without that that physical presence the Kurds would have again died in their tens of thousands.

2: "The fact of the matter is that we are interfering in the affairs of another sovereign country under the guise of protecting one section of the civilian population"

Now which section of the population is it that we are protecting? So far the only section that has been protected has been the civilian population that the forces of Muammar Gaddafi have been attacking. The "Rebels" have yet to attack any civilians and if they do I am sure that steps will be taken to stop them.

3: "This adventure appears to be over a multi billion oil contract which is on the table between BP and the Libyan government."

Your timing is off again akenaton the contract had already been agreed between Gaddafi and BP before this little lot flared up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:18 PM

The fact of the matter is that we are interfering in the affairs of another sovereign country under the guise of protecting one section of the civilian population.......or do you think that when the insurgent tanks start shelling Tripoli we will start incinerating them?

This adventure appears to be over a multi billion oil contract which is on the table between BP and the Lybian government.

Of course if Colonel Gadaffi survives, he will quite rightly wipe his arse with said contract.

We are there to make sure Colonel Gadaffi does not survive, just like Iraq.

We never ever learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:04 PM

I'm surprised Teribus, that you appear to be supporting the insurgency here yet were totally against it in Iraq.

I'm sure if the peasants revolted again in the UK, under the weight of Tory attacks on the poorest in society,you would be one of the first to want them shot down?

Does the rule of law apply only in this sceptred isle?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 02:13 PM

You left out Chigley...

Given that enforced regime change imposed by external forces would be illegal, there isn't really a better alternative, if that one is on the table.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 01:28 PM

Or was it Camberwick Green - 400 Up

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 01:27 PM

"A ceasefire, on the basis proposed by the African Union, conditional on a prompt election process, with safeguards and international monitors, seems the best option"

Awwww bless you Kevin, how are things in Trumpton these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 01:14 PM

It's been a long time since I've been romantically enamored with Rebel causes.

I remember well the heroic rebels in Angola fighting the Portuguese colonialists, and after finally winning, fighting each other for another 20 years. MPLA, I believe, finally won it all.

Then there were the Eritrean rebels fighting the oppressive Ethiopians under Mingistu's regime, and after they won their freedom they helped the Tigrian rebels sweep Mingistu out of power. Then when they had nothing better to do the Eriteans attacked Ethiopia and squandered what remained of their resources and young men.

The rebels in Libya may be no better or worse than other rebel movements. Lord knows they don't appear to be well organized. But given my opinion of the record of the Gadhafi regime for the last 40 years, I wish them well.

I don't think there will be any shortcuts to "the march on Tripoli." Now they really need to set up a major defensive line (if one can do that in the desert), get better organized, recruit and train more soldiers, and get resupplied with appropriate arms.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 12:36 PM

Ron seems to be saying that, even if the majority of Libyans would wish Gaddafi to stay in power, their wishes should be overruled, in favour of the wishes of a Libyan minority, and of outside governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 12:15 PM

A ceasefire, on the basis proposed by the African Union, conditional on a prompt election process, with safeguards and international monitors, seems the best option for getting out of this mess.

The rebels are never likely to win this civil war, and even if the Nato involvement steps up even further, and in effect they take over the fighting in breach of the UN mandate, the prospects don't look too promising for a rapid victory.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 08:51 AM

There's no question in my mind that the US needs to get more involved again.   US forces are only involved in support these days--and the rebels say that means a huge change in the results.   Without more US participation, a stalemate could easily result--which means in the long--or short--run--that Gadhafi wins.    With well-known consequences for "rats".

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 08:31 AM

Ake--

And how much of a level playing field do you think your referendum would have with Gadhafi still with about $6 billion in Libya?

Early in this crisis his folks went around handing out the equivalent of $400 to every family in Tripoli.    If you don't think this sort of thing would play a role in your referendum, just how naive are you?

And through his petrodollars he has tried to buy the goodwill of some very powerful players in Africa. For instance: "In March 2008 the Libyan leader visited Uganda amid huge fanfare to open a multi-billion dollar mosque, famed to be the second largest in Africa with a capacity to accommodate 15,000 worshippers.   Of course, he had financed its construction."

Source:   AllAfrica. com.

If you don't think this would influence many ordinary Moslems in his favor, you need to think again.

Perhaps you've heard the term:   ":Money talks".   If not, you should familiarize yourself with it.






However, on another front, there appear to be a few good developments in the Libya story.   The provisional government appears to be gaining legitimacy.

Most of a delegation of the African Union visited Benghazi to try to broker a truce.   This in itself helps the provisional government attain legitimacy.


Of course the rebels turned it down, since Gadhafi or his sons would have remained part of the regime.   It seems folks may have learned something since the conservatives in Germany included Hitler as part of the the government, thinking, despite his huge power base outside the government, that they could control him.

As a rebel spokesman put it, Gadhafi is "sending the AU to negotiate with the rats."

A Western diplomat in Benghazi said of the rebels' handling of the AU visit: "I'm impressed."

The more Western diplomats are impressed, the more likely NATO will stay the course--and hopefully give more direct military aid--everything short of ground troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 07:43 AM

Ake-

effect "regime change" regardless of the wishes of the majority of the Libyan people.

If wishes were fishes we'd all be in a stew!

So, you propose a national referendum before any attempt at regime change? When the last time that was done in England, or the States for that matter?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 03:14 AM

Just been watching footage of UN planes being guided in on huge buildings somewhere in Libya and completely obliterating them with a couple of missiles from long distance.
Now, even if these buildings are military premises, they must contain large numbers of civilian workers......or low level military guys just doing their jobs.

Considering the fact that we are not "at war" with Libya, how can we say that we are there only to protect civilians?

It appears that the truth is about to "come out"
That what we are really there for, is to effect "regime change" regardless of the wishes of the majority of vthe Libyan people.

Col Gadaffi must be having a wry smile at claims of the virtue of "Western democracy".

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 04:35 PM

Remember, there are no smart bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 10:03 AM

I rather suspect that "£2,500 per day" was dreamed up by some PR merchant. I'm sure the mercenaries are paid pretty well, as mercenaries generally are. Here's a page I found speculating about this kind of thing, and quoting some figures for comparison.

But there's clear no evidence I've seen that Gaddafi is particularly dependent on the mercenaries he employs, or that the Libyan troops are particularly liable to favour the opposition, as was the case in Egypt.

It maybe that the mass of Libyans in Tripoli are hoping for the rebellion to succeed, but I haven't seen any evidence for that. That doesn't mean Gaddafi is a nice man or a good ruler, but all too often pretty nasty and incompetent rulers have a lot of popular support. They even win elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 08:29 AM

You don't need 2,500 pounds a day to consider a job under Gadhafi a good deal if you're a Mali young man.    I get the impression that any job Gadhafi will pay you for is considered a big step up---and you can bet he does pay well on Mali standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 08:07 AM

This article tells of how African migrants are being abducted and forced to fight for Gaddafi.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/20114818291705627.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 07:31 AM

You can bet the mercenaries from Mali and Chad don't receive £2,500 per day.

I hadn't run across any articles mentioning the Serb mercenaries.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 02:50 AM

"Guest999 says some of my information is wrong but doesn't say which, nor why. I would be interested to know - the whole point of discussion should be to share knowledge rather than to try to big yourself up by putting others down."

When I have time--likely tomorrow--I will do so. No offense, but when you stated what you did, you simply stated it. Neither did you say "which, nor why."

As to 'big oneself up', that is as arrogant a statement unsupported by fact as I have read in a time. You have but an opinion. As do I.

Tomorrow.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 02:03 AM

Ron the most effective of Gaddafi's mercenaries are Serbs reputedly on £2,500 per day, many of whom have real combat experience in urban environments and who have no qualms at all about killing civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 01:21 AM

Not only are the mercenaries paid well, but they come from some of the poorest countries of Africa. And there's no future at home. I saw a NYT article interviewing some Mali young men, and at the end they asked the writer to put a good word in her article for Gadhafi, so he would be able to stay in power and, they hoped, hire more of them.

And Gadhafi has sponsored all sorts of improvements in those countries--as well as leading the OAS.    You can buy a lot of goodwill with as much oil money as he has.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 12:45 AM

"I am impressed that Gadhafi's troops are still willing to risk their lives at his orders."

What choice do they have Charley? Seen from their perspective:

1: They have much to gain from sticking it out, if victorious Gaddafi will reward those who stood by him well at the expense of those who did not.

2: We have no idea what information they are getting upon which to base their actions or form their intentions.

3: The mercenary elements hired by Gaddafi are being paid enormous sums of money.

4: There have as yet been no real battles, the nearest thing to a battle is being fought in and around Misratah, every other action can best be described as skirmishes, the "war" has been too fluid for anyone to have prepared a true defensive position that has to be attacked and carried.

5: Air power to date has only been used to enforce the "no-fly zone" and prevent heavy weapons being used against civilians and centres of population. I do think that there have been strikes put in against ground troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 10:43 PM

Charley... desertion is punishable by death without trial. A corpoal can deliver such punishment on the battlefield. I could go on but no need.