BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:20 PM

Having seen Cuba, and Mexico, and Trinidad, I have to say that I think the Cubans have a far better society in most respects, and that their people are better off for it. None of those societies are perfect, they all have notable problems, and a great many people in ALL of them would like to get to North America for a great variety of personal reasons...but the Cubans, in my opinion, have by far the best society of the three. All of Latin America tries to "escape" to the southern USA, and for very similar reasons. Not just the Cubans. Yet critics of Cuba seem to conveniently forget that when they bring up the matter of Cubans who drown trying to reach Florida. Why does this set Cuba apart in any way? Hell, if the Mexicans or the Brazilians or the Guatemalans or the Costa Ricans, or any other Latin Americans were living such a short distance across that narrow strait from Florida, they'd be doing the same damn thing...without Cuban socialism to be quoted as a dire reason for why they are doing it.

And if you don't agree me...fine. (shrug) Who really cares anyway?   I'm just stating my opinion, based on my own direct experience and observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:30 PM

Charley.....do you really think Gadaffi's men should play fair and sit out in the desert waiting for some invisible assassin to press a button and blow them all to pieces?

Please try to understand what we are getting involved in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 06:43 PM

1: NATO is NOT involved in supporting any one side in a "civil war". NATO's involvement in what is happening in Libya concerns protection of civilians and maintaining a "No-Fly Zone". Recently NATO has shown that it will engage and destroy anyone attempting to interfere with that mission irrespective of which side they are on.

2: "I take it that it would be quite alright if we were slaughtering young men under the control of Col. Gadaffi?"

Most certainly if they are attacking civilian targets or centres of population, or attempting to interfere with the enforcement of the "No-Fly Zone".

3: "How do we know how many inhabitants of Libya support the Col, or how many support the insurgents?"

Basically we don't, although it cannot be that many as the "good" Colonel and the "Father of the Revolution" has seen fit to hire and arm mercenary forces to fire on and kill his own people (Psst Ake I bet those killed and maimed don't love him)

4: "Why do we not tell the truth about our military actions, do these people think we are totally stupid?"

Well obviously you and I have been reading completely different accounts. According to you and others here "WE" supposedly are at war with Libya ("WE" of course are not) UNSCR 1973 tells you all that there is to be told. If you believe what MSM tells you then you are totally stupid.

5 "Gadaffi's regime may be harsh, but he appears to provide for his people better than most other states in the area."

Bullshit, but there again I forget you yearn for oppressive authoritarian regimes that exercise total control over the general population. Obviously a large proportion of the citizens of Libya feel differently to the extent that they are prepared to risk their lives to alter the state of things inside their country.

6: "The targeting of Col. Gadaffi's troops is terrorism, designed to make his supporters change sides and force him out of power."

If Colonel Gaddafi's troops and hired mercenaries are targeting and killing Libyan civilians then they are legitimate targets in accordance with the terms of UNSCR 1973. If actions taken by UN forces causes defections all well and good. If actions taken by UN forces causes Gaddafi to relinquish power then all well and good.

7: "I find this whole episode almost identical to the destruction of Iraq.....how can we forget so quickly the final excuse for our involvement in the deaths of a million men women and children"

Has Iraq been destroyed? I do not think so. Once again the "mythical million dead" is thrown into the discussion. Akenaton if you wish to claim that one million people have died in Iraq due to actions taken since March 2003 then prove it - don't quote "ESTIMATES FROM BATCH SAMPLED STUDIES" the Iraqi authorities put the numbe at around 150,000

By the bye "It's NOT because gaddafi's a bad man" It's because troops under Gaddafi's orders started gunning down his own people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 09:56 PM

"my own direct experience".    Right.    Experience of Brazil, Costa Rica, etc. being geographically situated where Cuba is now.


Sorry, that's more absurd speculation, based on nothing but the poster's guess, just possibly influenced slightly by ideological blinders.

Let's start living in the real world.

Historically there has been huge migration to the US from Cuba, usually harshly opposed by Castro.

And by the way, let's actually return to the topic--which is not Cuba.   I will start a thread for Cuba, in hopes that this blind alley will disappear from this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 10:09 PM

It will end right now, Ron, because I have no intention of wasting my time tonight fighting with you about politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 03:25 AM

Teribus......I could explain for the hundredth time how we become enslaved by the capitalist system, just as much as by any dictatorship, or totalitarian regime, but no one is listening.

The truth is that humanity is a species addicted to gambling....and most of us love to play the lottery.....we convince ourselves that we can be the guy who wins the millions.....conveniently forgetting the millions who lose their £.

I would be much more interested in your views on the future of capitalism in the UK or US, given the situation we find ourselves in financially.

Now that we are owned by China and India, how long do you think it will be before we are all herded off to the abattoir, with "unsustainable" branded on our arses.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:15 AM

"I would be much more interested in your views on the future of capitalism in the UK or US, given the situation we find ourselves in financially.

Now that we are owned by China and India, how long do you think it will be before we are all herded off to the abattoir, with "unsustainable" branded on our arses."

Bit off topic here aren't we?

What situation do we find ourselves in, that we haven't been in many times before? Only difference is that we can work our way out of trouble your bloody idiotic central Government controlled marxist regimes couldn't.

"Now that we are owned by China and India"

Well of course we are not "owned by China, India" or anybody else, the USA most certainly isn't. You obviously have a very simple approach and outlook when it comes to money and debt. Do not look at GDP, GNP and compare that to what the country owes without taking into account what the OWNS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:32 AM

Ake-

"do you really think Gadaffi's men should play fair and sit out in the desert waiting for some invisible assassin to press a button and blow them all to pieces?"

No, I was merely pointing out that now the job of destroying more of Gadhafi's heavy armament from the air is made more difficult to achieve given the fluid battle-line and similarity of fighting assets. And it's an open question whether NATO has a mandate to even provide close air support for a Rebel advance, assuming they had the communications needed to coordinate it. I suppose, at some point soon special forces embedded with the Rebels will provide that function. How to wage war is a learning process. So is waging peace.

France does appear to be now assuming more of a leadership role now within NATO, filling in for the withdrawn US assets. They certainly have a more direct interest in maintaining a supply of oil to their country from Libya than we do.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 10:44 PM

"whether NATO has a mandate..."

Oh brother, if we (and especially NATO) are determined to agonize about that, that clinches it:
guaranteed stalemate--until the rebels get disgusted and give up.

Either it is worth toppling Gadhafi or it is not.

And if it isn't, just why did the West say over and over that it was?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 11:04 PM

Ron-

Yes, that's the problem.

There are some wonderful Rebel spokespeople out there, and some well-intentioned NATO interveners as well, and they're all trying to figure out how to work with whatever else is out there to send Kadhafi off to Venezuela.

It's a little late to send Teddy Roosevelt in to lead the charge. Hillary might be up to it but Obama has a cooler head.

Hopefully somebody will get tired of the debate and just do it.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli has just begun
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 11:53 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 12:30 AM

Sorry, Bruce.   If NATO does nothing but "protect civilians" the conflict will never end--until the rebels give up.

Without more than the "protect civilians" mandate, the rebels are doomed.

If we accept that, then fine.

But their blood will be on our hands, just as much as when we encouraged rebels in 1991 in Iraq, then stood back and watched them slaughtered.

And after all, if they are in fact rebelling, they are no longer "civilians".

That's why that formulation is a disaster--unless we are willing to see Gadhafi resume his iron rule.

Which I don't think we should.

Alea jacta est.   And we should realize that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,99
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 11:38 AM

Then the UN and then Nato will have to amend the present ROE, Ron. I agree with you that TMWATN has to go.

The following is from April 6:

Libya targeted civilian protesters - war crimes court

Luis Moreno Ocampo is investigating Col Gaddafi, his sons and close aides

The chief prosecutor said the plans had been a reaction to street protests that led to the fall of the Tunisian regime.

Luis Moreno Ocampo is expected to request arrest warrants for Col Muammar Gaddafi, his sons and close aides.

Nato has vowed to do all it can to protect civilians after rebels accused it of failing to protect Misrata city.

"Misrata is our number one priority," Nato deputy spokeswoman Carmen Romero told the AFP news agency on Wednesday.

She added that alliance warplanes had hit Col Gaddafi's military assets around Libya's third largest city on Monday.

"We have a clear mandate and we will do everything to protect the civilians of Misrata," Ms Romero said, referring to the UN resolution that permits "all necessary measures" to defend Libya's population.

'Nothing left'

The rebels have been pushed eastward, beyond the oil town of Brega
On Tuesday, rebel commander Gen Abdul Fattah Younis complained that bureaucracy was causing Nato to take hours to respond to calls for air strikes.

"[Nato] is letting the people of Misrata die every day," he told reporters in the de facto rebel capital Benghazi. "If Nato should wait another week, there will be no more Misrata."

In The Hague on Tuesday, Mr Moreno-Ocampo said: "We have evidence that after the Tunisia and Egypt conflicts in January, people in the regime were planning how to control demonstrations inside Libya.

"The planning at the beginning was to use tear gas and [if that failed to work]... shooting," he told Reuters.

Doctors said last week that at least 200 people had been killed there since the uprising began on 17 February - a figure likely to have risen in recent days.

Nato says international air strikes have reduced Col Gaddafi's military capabilities by nearly a third, but his forces have deliberately moved weaponry into civilian areas to hamper air strikes.

A Nato-led coalition mandated by the UN to protect civilians is enforcing a no-fly zone and attacking ground targets. It accuses Gaddafi forces of sheltering weapons in civilian areas.


The oil tanker is a welcome sight for Libyan rebels
Rebel forces in the east of the country have retreated after heavy bombardment from Col Gaddafi's army, the BBC's Wyre Davies says from the front line, near the town of Ajdabiya.

In the past 24 hours, heavy and accurate shelling from Gaddafi troops has pushed the disorganised and poorly-equipped rebel army back to the fringes of the town, our correspondent adds.

It is a clear indication that without the protective cover of Nato air strikes, they would find it almost impossible to take the next town of Brega, never mind marching on Tripoli and removing Col Gaddafi from power, he adds.

In a boost to the rebels on Tuesday, a tanker arrived at the eastern port of Tobruk to pick up the first consignment of oil to be exported from the rebel-held region.

The Greek-owned ship is capable of carrying more than $100m (£61m) worth of oil.

Since the revolt against Col Gaddafi's rule began nearly two months ago, exports of Libya's main commodity have collapsed, driving up the price of oil to a two-and-a-half year high.

Also on Tuesday, the Gaddafi government made senior diplomat Abdelati Obeidi its new foreign minister, replacing Moussa Koussa, who sought refuge on the UK last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 11:45 AM

Guest 99-

Thanks for the update.

How are you related to Guest 999? Is there also a Guest 9?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 04:38 AM

A Nato spokesman has said, "It is our mission to protect ALL civilians in Libya". I take it that these words mean ....including civilians who support Col. Gadaffi.

This in response to questions over the destruction of insurgent tanks(by mistake) and the deaths of fourteen insurgents.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 04:41 AM

Do the supporters of the insurgency here, believe that the pro Gadaffi civilians have as much right to Nato protection as those who support the the insurgency......for whatever reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 04:55 AM

This one really is about oil.

In the early 70's Libya doubled the price of oil taken by the British and US oil extractors. At the same time, they took a 51% stake in all oilfield developments. The US in particular have never forgiven them for this and have sought to oust the regime ever since.

Qaddafi set up the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on a strictly Islamic basis. UK and US don't care for the way Islamist states work, so haven't forgiven them for that either.

Two significant smearings of Libya have happened; the French airliner downed by a bomb loaded in Congo, and Locherbie. The bomb in Congo was loaded in Brazzaville by a Congolese anti-government rebel. Libya had no involvement in Congo, but the French investigators "extracted a confession" (how?) from the Congolese rebel to implicate 6 important Libyans. The Libyans were found guilty in absentia by the Parisian court, extradition having been sensibly refused by Libya. (France had a dispute with Libya at the time over the Chadian issue).

People who know more about Locherbie than I do believe that Iranians were responsible, but the desperation to pin everything on to Libya meant that the guilty verdict was in place probably before the trial started - see Steve Shaw's earlier posts.

Russia will not touch this latest UN move hence only NATO (UK, US and France, surprise surprise) are involved - and just how quick were they to jump in! Russia believes that the problems throughout the Arab world are inspired and supported by Al Qaeda, and are bemused that Britain and America are bombing on their side, are anxious to arm them and commit ground troops.

UK and USA continue to try to show the world that you can get what you want so long as you have enough bombs to drop. UK has encouraged a "special relationship" with the school bully, thus giving him sanction to carry on behaving in his atrocious way. This war is illegal in USA because to go to war requires approval of Congress, which has not been given because it has not been sought. Nor was it when Reagan bombed Libya and killed Qaddafi's daughter (military target?). And why? - in response to some smoke and mirrors paranoia involving Libyan hit squads in the USA which mysteriously never materialised.

Libya's idealistic socialist state will be made to fail and the mob will try to take over. Whoever takes over will first spend Libyan peoples' money on replacing the weaponry that NATO have destroyed.

Does anyone yet know the name of a person, tribe, political or regional affiliation that represents the revolutionaries? Or how many people in Libya support the revolution?
Agreed there will always be those jealous of Western "freedom" (to get access to alcohol, drugs, fast food etc) rather than live according to the Koran - that will never change.

Libya in general and Qaddafi in particular are probably the most widely misunderstood of the Arab countries, which are all widely misunderstood by the West. Libya has lived in relative peace over the last 40 odd years following the bloodless coup in '69, (except for the Chadian war wherein Chad tried to claim back disputed territory on the border. Libya lost heavily to their opponents, Chad, France and, oh look - USA).

USA and their "special relationship" buddy need to start getting real about countries they don't understand and stop trying to impose their own solutions to problems that are none of their business - it hasn't worked in Afghanistan or Iraq, and it won't work in Libya.

Forgive the rant but this imperialist crap really makes me angry.

g

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:00 AM

"imperialist crap".

Drivel.   Leftist tripe. Hope I'm not too subtle.

More details later.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:36 AM

"Libya's idealistic socialist state" Guest giovanni is in fact a kleptocracy set up to enrich Gaddafi and his family Saif's yearly allowance amounts to £170,000,000. Not a thing can be done in Libya without involving the Libyan Investment Fund which is 100% owned by Gaddafi - I guess for a "socialist" that is about as ideal as it gets.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:42 AM

I didn't see it as a rant, g. However, some of your information is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:45 AM

Not that an ideological warrior, with which Mudcat is graced by an amazing number, should understand this, but I'll try anyway:

"This one is about oil".    That was said about Iraq also. In Iraq's case there may be some truth to the accusation--though I think it was to a large extent GWB's calculation that a short successful war against an obviously evil regime would prove very popular with the US electorate.

Since many of us realized that the Iraq invasion was a trumped-up move--to prevent something totally unproven (WMD)-- many of us Mudcatters opposed it completely. And good old John who wants to beat the "imperialist" drum would say the Iraq invasion was all about oil.    And again I think he is oversimplying--not that leftists ever do such a thing.   Not much. Of course not.

Some of us who opposed the Iraq invasion are in favor of the Libya campaign.

There are clear differences.   To allege a parallel, you would, as I noted earlier, have to posit that half of iraq , including half the military had broken away from Saddam before the first Western bomb fell in 2003.   And that the rebels in Iraq had made many direct appeals to the West to help them against Saddam.   Neither of which was the case.

And as Charlie, I believe, has pointed out earlier:    to say the Libyan invasion is all about oil makes precisely no sense for this reason:   before the attack by Western planes Libya was very happy to sell as much oil to the West as the West wanted.   So there would be no reason to attack Libya to get oil.

Unless you think the West wants to take over Libya.    Which is nothing but a typically stupid Leftist theory, graced by precisely zero evidence.

Again, hope I'm not being too subtle.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:47 AM

"half of Iraq, including half the military,"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:55 AM

Also "Libya's idealistic sociallst state".    If it is idealistic, and benefits the Libyan people as a whole, why do half the Libyans want themselves to topple this idealistic state?

I think "drlvel" is an apt description of the "idealist socialist" theory.

Or is it a proxy war, as alleged by the towering genius Jack Camplin, who wants to tell us about the Sudetenland parallel--but somehow has not found time to come up with any evidence?

Gee, I wonder why not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:58 AM

"Jack Campin"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 12:42 PM

Latest update from the "front" wherever that is now:

"Rebel defences around Ajdabiya appeared to be failing as Gaddafi's soldiers broke into the heart of the strategic town, 90 miles from Benghazi, and engaged in running street battles after again outmanoeuvring the revolutionaries.

Although western powers continued their air strikes, they did not appear to deter Gaddafi's forces."

Gadhafi's soldiers appear to have outflanked Ajdabiya, attacking it from the south and east. NATO planes were able to destroy 10 or so tanks but that didn't stop the attack. Resistence by the Rebels continues in the town.

Benghazi may itself be attacked next.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:15 PM

The Rebels evidently were successful in chasing Gadhafi's soldiers out of Ajdabiya. I'm surprised.

Meanwhile the Organization of African Unity has had a meeting with Gadhafi in Tripoli and it's said that he has endorsed their "roadmap to a ceasefire" whatever that means. The OAU representatives are flying to Benghazi next, and if they're not shot down, will confer with the Libya Interim Council there.

Oh, and appropriate obscenities to all of the above who feed on such things.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 09:35 PM

I wouldn't pin much too hope on the AU delegation:

"Nabila Ramdani, a French journalist and Middle East expert, said the situation with regard to Libya had reached not only a military but also a political deadlock.

"It's quite worrying," she told Al Jazeera. "Unfortunately, my view about the African Union is that it will appear as not being a credible group of people to be in a position to broker a deal on behalf of Gaddafi.

"They are a group of dictators themselves and they won't be taken very seriously given that they're from very brutal regimes which are in many ways far worse than the Gaddafi regime."

Ahmad Bani, a rebel spokesman, rejected a negotiated outcome to the conflict.

"There is no other solution than the military solution, because this dictator's language is annihilation, and people who speak this language only understand this language," he told Al Jazeera."

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 10:44 PM

"Road to a ceasefire" is exactly what Gadhafi wants---with him or his sons still left in the regime.

Then, when the West OK's this, comes payback on the rebels--which Gadhafi has already promised more than once.    After all, they are 'vermin".    Sounds amazingly like a Goebbels-endorsed film.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 02:37 AM

Fantastic feedback, just what one expects from Mudcat these days!

I'm neither a leftist nor a socialist, but I am a realist. I may not agree with the way Qaddafi wants Libya to live, but I do understand where he's coming from. He is an idealist and works hard at keeping his principles in place. Too hard by Western standards, but Arab states are not run according to Western standards, and probably can't be. Western intrusion works as well in the 21st century as it did in the Crusades.

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.

Which brings me neatly to Ron Davies, who questions my take on the ideology of Libya's socialist state. The answer is that it is idealistic therefore probably not practical - not many socialist states are very successful - but it is the state that Qaddafi's revolution put into words (see Green Book) and tries very hard to maintain. Ron asks why half of the Libyan people oppose it? Answer is that the supposition of half the people being opposed is simply the outpourings of the UK and US propaganda machines - which you are free to believe if you are naive enough. The truth is that nobody knows how many people the rebels represent, nor even who they are. Hence the Russian take on Al-Qaeda.

For Teribus and anybody else who thinks Libya has been worse off under Qaddafi than they were under his predecessor (the Western supported puppet King Idris) - you need to look up the statistics on hospital and school building and compare with the "achievements" of Idris during his 20 odd years of rule.

Qaddafi and his regime may not be everyone's cup of tea but his revolution in '69 was absolutely necessary to stop UK, US and Idris plundering. Plunder may still be going on but Libya is still better off than it was, due to the doubling of the oil price and nationalisation of oilfields in '71ish.

The latest revolution is simply the result of copycat action following Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and maybe some other states, which supports the Al-Qaeda theory that any unrest is better for them than continued peace. The only difference is that the 3 countries who have been historically opposed to Qaddafi (UK, USA, France) are not bombing those other countries.

g

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 05:59 PM

"For Teribus and anybody else who thinks Libya has been worse off under Qaddafi than they were under his predecessor"

Please show me Guest giovanni anywhere where I have intimated that "I thought that Libya was worse off under Gaddafi" than under King Idris. But please you don't really have to strain yourself, fact is I never said or inferred anything of the sort - so stop putting words into my mouth.

You made reference to "Libya's idealistic socilaist state" and I merely pointed out to you that there is nothing idealistic or socialist about Libya it is run as kleptocracy for the benefit of Gaddafi and those closest to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 10:28 PM

I am impressed that Gadhafi's troops are still willing to risk their lives at his orders. Anyone got an explanation for that behavior?

Sure, they may be very well paid but it takes more than that to continue to stay on the offensive as they've been doing.

Charley Noble

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.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Apr 11 - 04:35 PM

Remember, there are no smart bombs.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 01:28 PM

Or was it Camberwick Green - 400 Up