Breaking News: The Usual Suspects; US, France Britian to bomb Gaddafi to save the people

[NASSIR]

Lazie, I understand your concern over Middle Eastern leaders' tenacious cling onto power and the weak institutions, which perpetuate their abuse of human rights violations. However, let's look at beyond the media soundbites that bombard us with a mix of facts and myths designed to advance a short-term political and economic agenda while in complete disregard for the long term consequences that may result from such military intervention.

 

Libya is known as rich oil country. It has maintained trade surplus, tiny public debt and its people's per capital income is close to $14,000. If only its leader had allowed the diversification of his national export income by investing in education and R&D. Let's not also forget the country has weathered international sanctions. I argued that Libya shouldn't be de-estabilized but immediate political reform must be pressured on Libya & Gaddafi. According to CIA's world factbook, Libya has 22 states with a head of government. Therefore, political reform could have been the first priority rather than opting for a violent dissolution of Libya. I'm for freedom of expression and political reform but to impose total anarchy on a wealthy state is beyond my understanding. Unemployment has more often than not cited as very high and the fact that Libya is endowed with abundant of resources relative to its small population. However, that is due to the capital-intensive nature of the oil industry, not labor-intensive. Libyan seniors had received monthly national security income before the crisis unfolded, as opposed to Egyptian's extreme poverty levels.

 

What we all want for Libya: the preservation of its territorial integrity. But policymakers and chief economic advisors in Washington and Brussels believe that Libya's crisis is a threat to the current economic recovery. I think intervention either by direct means or aiding the rebels to take over the capital, I predicted, was inevitable.

 

Top powers' split over Libya had its resonance in one of the chapters of the history of Somalia. The British proposed the Bevin plan for greater Somalia whereas the French and the Italian had campaigned vigorously to keep or restore their colonies. America sided with Emperor Hailla Sallasie's position to return ****** and communist Russia dearly went after its idealogical imperialism. Thus Somalia after Independence became the first African state to facilitate the Soviet penetration of Africa. Libya is a rich country, hence the reason for the top powers to intervene and quarrel over its fate.

 

So my sister Lazie, do you think foreign intervention contributes more to internal conflict and violence than it helps spread democracy and the rule of law?

[Jacaylbaro]

[Som@li]

Nassir, Sometimes war is the easier way for a reform, Goolkii la sugaayey ayuu u salaxey markii ku bilaabay dadkiisa in uu gumaado.

 

What is the use of oil if its used to fund civil wars in other countries that has no connection with Libya? Seriously, the mad mad has been misusing the God given libyan resources and they are one of the poorest pple on earth? why?

 

This is a good and great news for majority of Libyans.

[nuune]

Lyzie-Gaal, waxaagu waa ila muran, aniguna ma jecli my dear Layzie inaan la murmo, muran bilaa micna ah,

 

wasn't I the one who was posting countless news articles one after the other denouncing Gadafi and supporting a peaceful protest like the one happened in Cairo and Tunis.

 

Now when myself and 98% of Solers who posted here outlined the intentions of the West against Libya, you all of a sudden made us supporters of Gadafi and his regime.

 

 

Libaax put it well, and everyone in this thread, I don't need to add more, read every post in this thread and tell me we are all mad, unpopular Sarkoogy and Cameroon will be our next Bush & Bush.

 

 

One more strategic point, Libya is much closer to Europe than Iraq, a fighter plane can take off from Britain and France and laucnh disasterous attacks in Libya and return quickly to their bases, for this, Libya will reduce their military spending, and the liberation will bring nicmatul fashuuqii adduunka to the masses of Europe.

 

Go and join with Sarkoogy & Cameron's liberation of the Libyan people, lets save the Libyan people by launching air strikes all over Libya

naga daa ciyaarta, ee orodoo bahasha baro.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

^ Bush was a simple man but he was on point when he said your either with us or against us or something to that affect. Your either a Qaddafi supporter or a supporter of the Libyan people. as they say, you cant be neutral in a moving train. and yes your all mad...

[nuune]

^^ Noted your love for Bush, Sarkoogy, and Cameroon, nothing new there from your side!

 

 

and for your info, no one is supporting Gadafi, and we all know how he sided with different groups in Somalia for his own interest and popularity, and no one is supporting the people who turned into rebels, armed themselves, created this chaos, in clear terms, peaceful transition of power is what is needed in Libya, that can be achieved through dialogue, then who turned down the dialogue, your beloved rebels who were dictated by France, everyone is against foreign bombardment of a sovereign country, I hope yaa Naxar you understand this clearly, the motives of the West is crystal clear, we want to remove Gadafi from power like we did to Saddam Hussein and install someone who listens to us, tell me, what have they done for Iraq, what was the result of the liberation of Iraq.

[ANWAR]

[ANWAR]

Libya,your next!

this shits cracks me up

 

[Somalina]

The rebels waving the French flag! will they live to regret it? we will find out soon enough. IA

[Jacaylbaro]

and no one is supporting the people who turned into rebels, armed themselves, created this chaos, in clear terms, peaceful transition of power is what is needed in Libya, that can be achieved through dialogue

You're missing the point here yaa Nuune ...........

 

Qadafi is not like Mubarak or Bin Ali ......... and this is exactly what is happening now. He refused everything from the first day and that is why the revolution turned into an armed confrontation ..... Of course the rebels will seek any support from anyone but this wouldn't happen if he did not start attacking everyone who opposed him from the get to go.

[nuune]

Destroying Libya in order to save it, thanks yaa JB

[Jacaylbaro]

I'm sure you would still blame the west if they keep silent on what Qadafi was doing sxb .................... He needs to resign before it is too late.

[Jacaylbaro]

Libyan government will distribute weapons to more than 1 million men and women within hours - Libyan state news agency

[General Duke]

It's unlikely Muammar Gaddafi has watched the 1971 British film Get Carter, in which Michael Caine plays vengeful London gangster Jack Carter, who embarks on a violent rampage before being killed. But as the west's military might bears down on Libya, the Libyan leader might find the story line instructive.

 

This war is personal now. Its primary, stated aim is to halt the regime's attacks on Libyan civilians. But David Cameron and other leaders have made it plain they also want the Libyan dictator removed from power. The US and its allies will not relent until they "get Gaddafi" and their nemesis is captured, jailed or dead.

 

This is a familiar scenario. When international disagreements deteriorate to the point when Washington feels it has no choice but to use massive military force, the person held most responsible is ruthlessly hunted down.

 

Manuel Noriega, Panama's mafia boss in the 1980s, was toppled in a US invasion in 1989 and ended up in a maximum security jail in Illinois. Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial in The Hague, where he died in custody. Saddam Hussein was dug out of a hole and sent to the gallows.

 

Gaddafi has no reason to expect that he will be treated any differently – a consideration that will certainly influence what he does next.

 

Cameron has offered high-minded justifications for the American-led "Operation Odyssey Dawn" air and missile strikes that Tripoli claims have killed more than 50 people. But his language also conveys a developing personal animus. Gaddafi had "lied to the international community" and broken his word on the ceasefire, the prime minister said. This was behaviour akin to that of a pupil caught cheating during prep. It just couldn't go on.

 

"He must stop what he is doing, brutalising his people ... We'll judge him by what he does," Cameron told the Commons on Friday. But in other remarks, he was more forthright. "Gaddafi needs to go," he said, and Britain would help him on his way.

 

Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, was similarly blunt. "It is our belief that if Mr Gaddafi loses the capacity to enforce his will through vastly superior armed forces, he simply will not be able to sustain his grip on the country," he said.

 

Nicolas Sarkozy, Cameron's co-hawk, has been busy swapping insults with Gaddafi, with all the appearance of a personal vendetta. After the Libyan leader said the French president had "gone mad", Sarkozy responded in kind, condemning Gaddafi's "murderous madness".

 

Sarkozy has also spoken of "targeted" actions – meaning assassination – should Gaddafi authorise the use of his stores of mustard gas or other WMD. Even normally measured Barack Obama has been getting hot under the collar about the man Ronald Reagan branded a "mad dog".

 

Taken by itself, such name-calling might not matter so much. But the larger, unavoidable conclusion is that capturing or killing Gaddafi has now become an end in itself for the western allies (though perhaps not their Arab coalition partners), and that the war will not be deemed "won" until this objective is attained.

 

The implications are serious. Now the missiles and B52s have begun their dreadful work, Gaddafi knows, if he didn't already, that he's in a fight to the finish – and for him, there may be no escape. His course of action in the coming days will be influenced by this realisation, and may be consequently more extreme and more aggressive than otherwise.

 

His defiant overnight statement, when he condemned the "crusader colonialism" afflicting his country, was clearly aimed at Arab and Muslim world opinion in particular, and the non-western world in general (major countries such as China, India, Brazil and Germany have not supported the intervention). Regime claims about mounting civilian deaths will play big there, Iraq-style. Gaddafi will press his propaganda advantage for all its worth.

 

The demonisation of Gaddafi has made it impossible for western leaders to countenance his continuation in power. But without the ground invasion they have pledged not to undertake, he could well survive as the overlord of western and southern Libya following a de facto partition, hostile, vengeful and highly dangerous.

 

This seems to be his plan. Far from giving up or drawing back, Gaddafi escalated the fighting around Benghazi at the weekend. Rather than abandon cities such as Zawiya, as Obama demanded, he is reportedly moving his troops into urban areas where they can less easily be targeted from the air. Meanwhile, his apparent willingness to use "human shields", his threats of retaliation across the Mediterranean area, and his designation of the whole of north Africa as a "war zone" raises the spectre of possible terrorist attacks and an alarming regression to his old ways.

 

Gaddafi has personalised this war, too. And he is not going to go quietly. Military superiority in the air will count for nothing if pro-regime army and air force units, militia and security forces, and civilian and tribal supporters who have remained loyal refuse to turn on him or kick him out of Tripoli. By its determination to "get Gaddafi", the west has made this a fight to the death – and death may be a long time in coming.

[General Duke]

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, has said the military operation in Libya called for by the UN Security Council is not aimed at regime change - adding that a "stalemate" could well exist, leaving Muammar Gaddafi in power.

 

The 64-year-old admiral also said that no-fly zone had "effectively been established", as Gaddafi's planes had not taken to the skies following Saturday's overnight shelling of dozens of targets in northern Libya.

 

"In the first 24 hours, operations have established the no-fly zone. French air planes are over Benghazi as we speak and will do that on a 24/7 basis. The operations have taken out some ground forces near Benghazi, taken out air defences, some of his control nodes, some of his airfields, I don’t have all damage assessments, but so far [it's been] very very effective," he said.

 

Gaddafi "was attacking Benghazi and we are there to stop that ... we are ending his ability to attack us from the ground, so he will not continue to execute his own people."

 

Mullen, the most senior officer in the US military, denied that any civilians had been killed in the bombardment, which saw some 110 cruise missiles being shot from American naval vessels in the Mediterranean sea.

 

Libyan state TV has reported that death toll from the air strikes has risen to more than 60.

 

It's understood that 20 of 22 Libyan targets were hit in the overnight assault, "with varying levels of damage", a military source told Reuters.

 

Mullen also said the US would be handing command of the operation to "a coalition" of militaries, with support coming from the Arab world, as well as NATO members.

 

"There are forces, air planes in particular from Qatar, who are moving into position as we speak. There are other countries who have committed - I'd rather have them publicly announce that commitment, and it was a significant point when the Arab League voted against this guy. This is a colleague [of theirs], so that message is indeed loud and clear, and we’ve had a significant number of coalition countries who've come together to provide capability, most of them are from Europe, and I think this will continue to build."

Now the Allied powers are contradicting themselves and highlighting that this was never about regime change.