Libya - anyone watching?

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • So it was announced today that NATO will be taking over command of both the 'No fly zone' and also the arms embargo... but it's still not known who will be in command the air strikes... I really hope that NATO assumes control over those too... The decision for allied forces to intervene was short sighted to say the very least.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…/france-turkey-nato-libya

  • I think that there should be some intervention, i just don't think it should be us, the west, doing it.



    Totally agree but Haig's got an answer to that: "... we have the support of the Arab League ..." Which is a tad iffy. Heard him on the news saying more Arab airforces are joining the no-fly zone. Pressume these are airforces we haven't strafed in the past. At $2m a pop for a cruise missile we'll know where our dough went when we can't afford to pay benefits to the poor. Good grief.

  • I think that there should be some intervention, i just don't think it should be us, the west, doing it.


    I disagree, we already intervened by supporting the armed rebels from the very beginning, had the west not backed this, nothing much would have happened, whatever anyone thinks of Gadaffi, further Western intervention is much more dangerous for Libyans and the world at large. Perhaps we can "liberate" the Libyans now by murdering a million or so just like we did in Iraq?

  • Well with all the differing factions in NATO arguing who does what heaven help us if anyone tries to invade Europe....they'll be setting up committees to decide the response and by the time they've decided it'll be all over.

  • I cant see how "protecting " civilians includes supporting the rebel/freedom fighters


    No one actually believes this is about 'protecting civilians' though do they? I dont understand why polititians cant just be straight and say 'look,we have interests to protect so we have to get involved for our own benefit'.Then maybe the world could discuss the rights and wrongs of that properly rather than the really shit smokescreen that no one believes anyway.

  • I cant see how "protecting civilians" includes supporting the rebel/freedom fighters
    :wall:


    Really? its fairly obvious, we are "protecting civilians" by doing some cool stuff like bombing the government.
    Headlines like this
    Aided by western bombing, Libyan rebels head toward Tripoli


    http://www.miamiherald.com/201…stern-bombing-libyan.html


    How is that not supporting the armed rebels FFS - we are bombing the government and doing their job for them


    To all those who absorb the MSM reports about Gadaafi remember this is the jewel in the crown of Africa with an amazing standard of living, healthcare, education etc compared to the rest of the continent - not to mention the UK. Students in Libya do not need loans to study - they get it free with a nice stipend to live on. Need an operation but cant find a hospital in Libya to carry out the procedure - no probs the governent will fly you abroad and pay for treatment. Housing too expensive - no probs the Libyans enjoy subsidized housing. Some of these policies would be an improvement in the UK!!! Qaddafi is a target is because he nationalised the oil industry providing all these benefits and has been a thorn in the side for neocons ever since.


    Every single crime which Gadaffi has been acused of is something all western leaders have been guilty of in the recent past. Its all theatre to mask a regime change operation much like the well documented overthrow of the democratic and popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (who also nationalised the oil industry), orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States (well documented and admitted) - right down to the manipulation of the media. Despite being an incredibly popular and democratically elected leader, Mosaddegh was depicted as a monster in the western media. We are seeing exactly the same thing today and most are still falling for it hook, line and sinker.


    interesting article by Cynthia McKinney former US Congresswoman http://english.pravda.ru/histo…_rights_and_liberation-0/

  • Bob Crow (TGWU) on 'Any Questions' (Radio 4) last Friday made an interesting comment about how the UK orchestrated a 'coalition' of countries to support the no-fly zone over Libya within a matter of days but the same countries can't get the amount of resources (ships & plabes) together to take humanitarian aid, food and supplies to the people of Japan who are really suffering. A confusion of priorities as usual.


    With regards to 'heaven help us if anyone tries to invade Europe,' there was an MoD report in the late 1970's along the lines of a Soviet attack on Western Europe which would last about five days because (for example) the German's main battle tank had an engine which could run to Moscow and back before it needed an oil change with a gun which couldn't hit a barn door at 50-yards, the Brit's main tank had an engine which will conk out quickly but a laser-guided gun which can pop off anything which comes into range until the repair crew show up, not all Russian tanks have radios so there will be massive confusion in their ranks ... ramming each other was the best policy to see any results ... and as for tactical nuclear battlefield weapons, no one knew if they'll work until someone tried to fire one but no one would because of MAD, hence the 'war' will last about five days until it grinds to a halt amid a confused embarrassment with a 25 (+ or -) mile change in the East/West border. That quite cheered me up when I was told the theory ...

  • Oops sorry Mods, I waited to long to make the corrections. My post should have read:


    Bob Crow (TGWU) on 'Any Questions' (Radio 4) last Friday made an interesting comment about how the UK orchestrated a 'coalition' of countries to support the no-fly zone over Libya within a matter of days but the same countries can't get the same amount of resources (ships & planes) together to take humanitarian aid, food and supplies to the people of Japan who are really suffering. A confusion of priorities as usual.


    With regards to 'heaven help us if anyone tries to invade Europe,' there was MoD pub gossip in the late 1970's along the lines of a Soviet attack on Western Europe would last about five days because (for example) the German's main battle tank had an engine which could run to Moscow and back before it needed an oil change with a gun which couldn't hit a barn door at 50-yards, the Brit's main tank had an engine which will conk out quickly but a laser-guided gun which can pop off anything which comes into range until the repair crew show up, not all Russian tanks have radios so while they could get to the assembly point it would be a confused free-for-all battle ... ramming each other was the best policy to see any results ... and as for tactical nuclear battlefield weapons, no one knew if they'll work until someone tried to fire one but no one would because of MAD, hence the 'war' will last about five days until it ground to a halt amid embarrassment with a 25 (+ or -) mile change in the East/West border. That quite cheered me up when I was told the theory ...

  • Less and less heard on this now... is the media actually getting bored of war, or is the developing stalemate just not sexy enough?

  • Less and less heard on this now... is the media actually getting bored of war, or is the developing stalemate just not sexy enough?


    They have all the support they need now and everything is going to plan



    Libyan rebels selling oil
    http://www.u.tv/News/Libyan-re…38-4865-a2c0-7db5767a105e


    Libyan rebels set up central bank
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/4230861…rm_Their_Own_Central_Bank


    The nationalisation of oil and the virtually debt free nationlised central bank are being dismantled now as per plan - shortly Libya will be in the same massive debt as the rest of the world and the oil revenues will be used to make a rich elite even richer, much like our economy:(

  • Hmmm. Good news and bad, all at the same time? Long term, will the "rebels" ensure that oil remains a state asset and likewise the bank, or will it end up in private hands and the country borrowing money. The banks don't like anyone except themselves to own anything. Anyone remember the tories tryng to stop Tony Benn from Nationalising britains oil when it was found in the north sea? If they had succeeded, the oil companies would have made a killing and we'd have got nothing. And we're supposed to be a developed nation, what hope do poor ones have?

  • What I almost posted on the wrong thread was the John Humphries R4 interview with Haig yesterday morning, trying to pin him down to 'the end game' and not getting an answer but illicted that we'll soon be materially helping The Rebels. To which Humphries asked, "How do we know the Rebels will be any better than what's (who is) running Libya now? They could be worse." To which Haig, squirming, didn't have an answer. It all makes work for the working arms dealers to do. Apparently we are already supplying surplus flak jackets and radios to The Rebels. I hope they're not the same ones our chaps in Afghanistan were complaining about.


    Good to see the Typhons work, first time in action, taking out tanks.

  • So now 'regime change' *is* the official goal,hands up whos surprised :rolleyes:
    And on the bbc website today..

    Quote

    Mr Cameron said the terms of the UN resolution on Libya are a "restriction" on the coalition powers who have been trying to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone. "We're not occupying, we're not invading, that's not what we're about. And that is obviously a restriction on us, but I think it is the right restriction.
    "It's because we've said we're not going to invade, we're not going to occupy, this is more difficult in many ways, because we can't fully determine the outcome with what we have available.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13110696
    Wasnt the original plan just to 'protect civilians'? The 'outcome' isnt supposed to be our business. And I get why its fallen off the front pages,nothing us uk civilians can do about it but letting countries we mess with just slide into 'history' when theyre still ongoing situations is why our government can carry on doing this sort of thing over and over.And when it finally bites us on the ass will it be those polititians or us civilians that bear the brunt?


    *waits for news that the 'coalition' *has* to invade because the situations 'changed' and is 'out of control'* :rolleyes:

  • So now 'regime change' *is* the official goal,hands up whos surprised :rolleyes:
    And on the bbc website today..


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13110696
    Wasnt the original plan just to 'protect civilians'? The 'outcome' isnt supposed to be our business. And I get why its fallen off the front pages,nothing us uk civilians can do about it but letting countries we mess with just slide into 'history' when theyre still ongoing situations is why our government can carry on doing this sort of thing over and over.And when it finally bites us on the ass will it be those polititians or us civilians that bear the brunt?


    *waits for news that the 'coalition' *has* to invade because the situations 'changed' and is 'out of control'* :rolleyes:


    yes, the initial UN resolution (UNSC r.1973 )Was just to protect civilians, then that was stretched to actually attacking government forces to assist the rebel forces and providing them with arms and having The CIA and MI6 on the ground assisting the rebels, now its stretched to removing Gadaafi from power. In other words, a completely illegal regime change operation with no authority at all.

  • In addition, the UN resolution was actually based on uncorroborated media reports of Gadaafi forces attacking unarmed civilians using airstrikes


    Quote


    (U.S. Department of Defense - transcript March 01, 2011)
    Question: Do you see any evidence that he actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?


    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.


    Admiral Michael Mullen: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.


    So the initial resolution was disingenuous to say the least, to stretch this to regime change and possibly occupation/invasion is proof that once again our intervention has nothing to do with freedom, protecting civilians or human rights - but everything to do with annexing an economic and strategic target.

  • There is so much wrong now with the Libyan situation it's hard to know where to start.
    The students that started the protests have been totally sidelined by the west in favour of the Libyan Transitional Council, a western manufactured body filled with stooges that has already started selling off the oil for weapons.
    So called sanctions on Gaddafi's stooges are lifted as soon as they "defect", Moussa Kousa has no restrictions on the millions he's salted away, international arrest warrants are dissappeared as effectively as some of his victims and all the indignation from Cameron et al at the release of the alleged Lockerbie bomber evaporates and they're suddenly best friends with an international torturer that likely planned the whole thing.
    I've no doubt we've got legal experts that will be wheeled out soon to inform us that actually it is legal for us to send in ground troops to remove Gaddafi after all, we just didn't read the resolution right.

  • Interestingly, documents released under FOA at last prove Iraq was about the oil, money and profit - nothing to do with democracy, freedom for Iraq people, weapons of mass destruction and other lies propogated by our leaders at the time -all those labelled as "tinfoil conspiracy nuts" at the time have been proved right


    Quote

    Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n…sion-of-iraq-2269610.html


    Yet, people out there are still ready to believe these current military operations are all about freedom and democracy:rolleyes:

  • This is my side issue - and possibly off topic to boot - but how many UK Troops have we got fighting foreign wars? How many are left back here in the UK. I ask because if some loonies armed to the teeth decide to storm the Mother of our Parliament what's to stop them? I mean really goes for it. Putin presses the button in a fit of maudlin drunk? Domestic madness?


    So if Cameron sends in ground troops to a civil war, does that make us the insurgents? And if so ... draw your own conclusions as to who gets targeted. Never forget it was the US who sent 'advisors' into Vietnem and President Kennedy (Dem) who escalated the war by sending in ground troops. Result - 58,000 American dead. History - the lessons we never learn.


    If the Libyan no-fly zone was to protect civilians at which point was it decided to only protect rebel civilians. Or no sign of NATO who pledged to protect these civilians. Ramping up the war by inaction so we have the excuse to invade? It makes me wanna spit.

  • Excellent analysis in The Guardian of the current situation. Also a sobering read for anyone still suffering under the illusion that governments are competent, have a plan, and know what they're doing:


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…ain-bombs-libya-whitehall


    Quote

    Britain's half-war against Libya is careering onward from reckless gesture to full-scale fiasco. As it reaches six months' duration, every sensibly pessimistic forecast has turned out true and every jingoistic boast false. Even if the desperate and probably illegal tactic of trying to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi gets lucky, Britain would find itself running a shambles of its own making, with troops having to go in to "keep the peace". Unlike in Basra or Helmand, there will be no Americans on hand to bail them out. It is frightening how deep the imperial gene runs in generations of British politicians.

  • Russia’s position (Vershinin) in the Libyan conflict: the military operation has reached a deadlock, and the search for a political solution should be resumed. The efforts of the Western countries have confirmed the absence of a military solution. Libyans themselves should decide the future of their country – without outside interference, the diplomat noted. He added that there would be no place for Muammar Gaddafi in a democratic Libya.....


    Or it seems British Politics....with the Rebels losing heart in the mountains and their leaders arguing amongst themselves the Russians are well placed in Eygpt to gather the spoils....

  • OK... 3 weeks later and things have moved on just a tad.


    I'm sure that last week the general idea was that the 3 month stalemate was here to stay etc etc., and Gadaffi even looked to be gaining the upper hand, and divisions opening within the rebel movement so... without dragging in MI6 or the CIA or the other usual suspects, any ideas about what the hell happened? :S

  • whats the differance with what caddafis men were going to do in the first place that got our lot in there in the first place and what the rebels are doing in siert now