Libyan Civil War

[Aurielius]

I thought that since the expansion of the Egyptian thread was now veering to the Civil War ongoing in Libya that it would deserve it's own thread since the situation in Egypt is mostly settled at least for the next few months.

I am not going to give this thread a slant but rather let it be an open ended discussion The events to date:

 

Reporting from Tripoli, Libya and Cairo —

Scores of additional people were killed in the Libyan port city of Zawiya on Saturday, witnesses said, as Moammar Kadafi remained locked in fierce clashes with rebels on multiple fronts throughout the country.

Kadafi renewed his assault on Zawiya, 25 miles west of Tripoli, at 4 a.m. with tanks, bombings and militias, according to rebel organizer Salem Salem. "About 40 people died just this morning," Salem said."The rebels, he said, were able to hold the city but were anticipating yet another wave of attacks. "There are bodies everywhere. We have no ability to collect them,"

Independent verification of the reports was impossible, however, and Kadafi's government has asserted that significant portions of the city were in their control.

A reporter for Britain's Sky news said a makeshift hospital set up in a mosque was overwhelmed. She said Kadafi forces near the hospital were firing on ambulances.Meanwhile on the eastern front, rebels celebrated the taking of Ras Lanuf, a central oil port. Tawfiq Mangoosh, a rebel fighter, said government forces fled the city after hours-long clashes that left dozens dead on both sides.The rebels said they were now heading farther east to Kadafi's hometown of Surt, which is believed to be heavily fortified by government loyalists.

~ Reuters

Edited March 5, 2011 by Aurielius

[ub3rman123]

Huh. There's no way Gaddafi will be able to hold onto his reign now. Once people see what he's willing to do to stay in power, they become much less accepting. If he wanted to stay in power, what he should have done was try to improve the conditions there and go along with what the protesters want. Make 'em happy, basically.

[JimboUK]

I can see this dragging on if no one intervenes, the rebels have the numbers but Gaddafi has control of the air and plenty of money to spend on mercenaries. That said I can see the west getting involved, our leaders will turn a blind eye to the suffering of people but not to oil hitting $200 a barrel.

[evilneko]

Yeah, Khadafi's nuts, doing his Baghdad Bob impression all over the radio and TV.

 

I applaud the rebels and wish them success in overthrowing the Colonel and setting up a government afterward. In regard to intervention, I think other nations should stay out of it unless invited by the rebels, humanitarian efforts excepted of course. jim_uk is probably right though. Oil is king...

[JimboUK]

It really is in the wests interest to have this end sooner rather than later, inflationary pressures are already building up thanks to the idiotic scale of money printing and the increases in commodity prices. Increases in the price of fuel are felt right the way through the economy from electronic goods to food. Increasing interest rates is the last thing they want to do at the moment, not that it would do much good because the inflation isn't being caused in the usual way (wage rises, spending). I guess for some it'll increase the value of their currency making imports cheaper but that's about it, we certainly are entering interesting times.

 

Maybe something positive may come from this, finally it looks as if the government are serious about lessening our reliance on oil.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/05/oil-uk-energy-sources

[DarkeWolf]

I can see this dragging on if no one intervenes, the rebels have the numbers but Gaddafi has control of the air and plenty of money to spend on mercenaries. That said I can see the west getting involved, our leaders will turn a blind eye to the suffering of people but not to oil hitting $200 a barrel.

Lets not forget that we want to be on friendly terms with whoever takes the chair if the nutcase loses power. Having allies, or at least friendlies there in the middle east would be a huge benny. Especially with that much oil coming out of that country.

And that's going to be a Global standpoint, not just the US. That country has a real strong hold on the global economy.

 

One thing I think is just rediculous tho, is that up until he went after the oil fields, our stance was "Please stop. Please don't hurt your people." But as soon as he went after the oil fields it was "This man can't remain in power any longer. We're going to freeze his assets and do what we can without officially sending in troops".

 

Seriously, does anybody think that we're NOT assisting the rebels? Or that other countries aren't either?

Is it just me or does that warship in the gulf not make a good landing spot for helos or supply ships from other countries? How much footage are they shooting on that ship? How much footage are they shooting of the rebels themselves? VERY little.

 

One really bad thing that he's got going for him is having to depend on mercenaries. At a big sign that he's gonna run, or that he can't pay them... boom.. they're gonna split. Or maybe even switch sides if the other side can bribe them off.

 

Gaddafi is in a losing position and he knows it. Its just a matter of time.

[Harbringe]

It really is in the wests interest to have this end sooner rather than later, inflationary pressures are already building up thanks to the idiotic scale of money printing and the increases in commodity prices. Increases in the price of fuel are felt right the way through the economy from electronic goods to food. Increasing interest rates is the last thing they want to do at the moment, not that it would do much good because the inflation isn't being caused in the usual way (wage rises, spending). I guess for some it'll increase the value of their currency making imports cheaper but that's about it, we certainly are entering interesting times.

 

Maybe something positive may come from this, finally it looks as if the government are serious about lessening our reliance on oil.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/05/oil-uk-energy-sources

 

What a sad commentary for us in the West when our economies can be so troubled by such events in a place like Libya ,its not like they are one of the worlds larger oil exporters yet even the loss of that amount of oil can cause ripples throughout our economies. 20 -30 - 40 years ago we should have started planning for this ( consequences of oil ) when times were good like the Germans or Brazilians did .Now when there are uprisings or revolutions in any oil producing country we're going to have to take into consideration whether we need to get involved , just to keep our costs of food and the like (commodities) reasonable. How precariously we live.

 

If this war in Libya drags on your going to hear more and more voices calling for a direct intervention. Egypt 86 million had too many people for such a thing but Libya only has 6 million and it's much more likely.

[Nadimos]

Libya is not same as egypt and tunesia. Also gadaffis is not the president or prime minister, but more of an outside advisor, like a fatherly figure. The country itself is one of the rhichest in africa, because of the oil and has only 6 million people living in it. The past statistics speak not bad for this country at all.

Compare this with nigeria, a country which is basicly owned by shell

or any other country in africa for that matter.

 

Notice something?

 

This is not the same as egypt or tunesia. This is more of a 'secret' war.

Just poeple are quickly taken away by current events.

 

Splinter groups financed by groups outside already tried to overtake this country before.

It all can be red in the news.

 

Along with this look at the statistics of the country and compare to the rest of africa.

This country and its poeple are not 'poor'.

 

Then look at who financed the splinter groups,

whoever tried to destabilise lybia in the years before.

 

 

In conclusion this is most likely work of cia and/or mossad, who tried to remove this guy already for a long time.

 

 

You know. Like with Osama, who comes from the royal family in saudi arabia and they are 'very nice', so we give them money.

 

Anyway thus it still goes with the double standards in the middle east. I mean look at it. Isreal screaming: "Dont let Mubarak go, oh our Mubarak."

 

Its so old.

 

Actually i am not even interested in this drama.

Just you know. Theres more to it.

 

If the west, we, would send in troops it would spoil the whole operation and probably destabilze the rest.

Like in china. We dont want this to happen at all.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Nadimos

[Aurielius]

I have a question for my British brethren, has the government yet explained how a SAS team was detained in Libya and what was there ostensible mission? The information on this side of the pond is sketchy at best, but seriously I thought better of the SAS than this muddle. Edited March 6, 2011 by Aurielius

[JimboUK]

I have a question for my British brethren, has the government yet explained how a SAS team was detained in Libya and what was there ostensible mission? The information on this side of the pond is sketchy at best, but seriously I thought better of the SAS than this muddle.

 

Apparently they were escorting a diplomat who wanted to make contact with the rebels, I have no idea what the thinking behind it was. I would imagine they chose capture over a fire fight with the very people they'd gone to speak to, they've since been released. I get the feeling the UK government are more involved there then they're letting on, there are also rumours of MI6 involvement on the ground but they are only rumours. We do have troops on standby, 24 hours notice.