|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 20, 2011 9:10:15 GMT 1
I smell a rat.
Of course, I don`t believe they suddenly want to protect civilians, as they claim.
Is it about oil again, like in Iraq in the past?
U.S. and coalition forces launched military strikes against Libya, a calculated gamble that a rapid, and substantial attack could knock out loyalist support for strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
In an opening salvo, U.S. and U.K. forces on Saturday unleashed around 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan targets. U.S. Vice. Adm. William Gortney told reporters that the missiles, which struck Libya around 3 p.m. EDT, were aimed at more than 20 Libyan air-defense sites.
In the early hours Sunday in Tripoli, heavy antiaircraft guns and small-arms fire were heard for about 15 minutes close to Col. Gadhafi's compound. It couldn't be determined if coalition aircraft were in the vicinity, however.
US and British ships and submarines on Saturday fired more than 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 air defense system sites inside Libya, the Pentagon's Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said.
The coalition missile strikes represented a dramatic escalation in turmoil that has swept across the Mideast and North Africa. They came after Col. Gadhafi appeared determined to press his attack on Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city that's become the last bastion of opposition resistance.
Despite a United Nations resolution authorizing force against the regime, the colonel's troops penetrated deep into the city Saturday and heavily shelled the rebel capital's residential neighborhoods, threatening to snuff out the month-old Libyan revolution.
Armor and artillery loyal to Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi pounded the rebel-held city of Benghazi today despite a declared cease-fire, causing civilian residents to flee toward Egypt. WSJ's Yaroslav Trofimov reports.
In a brief audio address broadcast by state media shortly before midnight Libya time, Col. Gadhafi responded to the strikes by vowing to turn the Mediterranean basin and North Africa into "a battleground," and said he would arm all Libyan civilians to defend the country against "a second Crusader war."
Al-Jamahiriya television, the state's main channel, aired a photo of Col. Gadhafi's headquarters in Bab Aziziya in Tripoli, which was hit in U.S. airstrikes in 1986, and played Pan-Arab patriotic songs from the 1950s.
A Libyan military spokesman said 48 people had been killed and more than 150 injured in the coalition strikes against civilian and military targets in Benghazi, Misrata, Tripoli, Sirte and Zuwara. The spokesman, who appeared on state television reading from a prepared statement, didn't provide further details.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 20, 2011 9:32:28 GMT 1
Why am I so suspicious? I am surprised by the sudden twist in the Western relationship with the nasty Libyan regime. First they support it fully, hug and breed Ghadaffi, next they bash it/him and send missiles. Isn`t it crazy? I think we should start fearing Western leaders as unpredictable schizos. Before:      Did they forget Lockerbie?  www.bollyn.com/the-revolt-in-libya-sarah-in-tripoli
Obama, not Bush, expanded military aid to Libya despite human rights abuses
WASHINGTON — The administration of President Barack Obama requested military aid for Libya in 2011 despite massive human rights violations, a congressional report said.
The Congressional Research Service reported that the Obama administration had been preparing to relay military aid to Libya this year. In a report by Christopher Blanchard and Jim Zanotti, CRS cited plans to provide military education and training for Col. Moammar Gadhafi's security forces.
The report said military education funds for Libya were first requested by the Bush administration for fiscal 2009, but was not provided. The report cited a 2009 State Department report on continuing rights abuses in Libya:
"Continuing problems included reported disappearances; torture; arbitrary arrest; lengthy pretrial and sometimes incommunicado detention; official impunity; and poor prison conditions. Denial of fair public trial by an independent judiciary, political prisoners and detainees, and the lack of judicial recourse for alleged human rights violations were also problems."
This month, the administration has reported that the United States suspended military cooperation with Libya, Middle East Newsline reported. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the cooperation was not significant, but did not elaborate.
"For FY2010, the Obama administration requested $350,000 in International Military Education and Training funding for Libya to 'support education and training of Libyan security forces, creating vital linkages with Libyan officers after a 35-year break in contact,' " the report, titled "Libya: Background and U.S. Relations," said.
CRS, which provides background to members of the House and Senate, said Libyan participation in the U.S. military education program would have paved the way for additional training.
Instead, Obama expanded military cooperation with Libya during his first year in office, the report said. CRS said the White House requested the Libya be eligible to receive weapons under the U.S. Foreign Military Financing program.
"The Obama administration also requested Foreign Military Financing assistance for Libya for the first time in FY2010, with the goal of providing assistance to the Libyan Air Force in developing its air transport capabilities and to the Libyan Coast Guard in improving its coastal patrol and search and rescue operations," the report said.
The administration also approved a Libyan request for the modernization of Gadhafi's air transport fleet. Libya acquired 10 U.S.-origin C-130 aircraft, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, in 1970.
"FY2011 FMF assistance is being requested to support Libyan participation in a program that assists countries seeking to maintain and upgrade their U.S.-made C-130 air transport fleets," the report said.
The report, completed in February, did not say whether the Gadhafi regime benefited from U.S. upgrades of his air force or navy. The administration has acknowledged that Congress blocked plans for an upgrade of Libya's armored personnel carrier fleet.
The U.S. military has engaged the Gadhafi regime in a dialogue to upgrade Libyan forces, reported at less than 120,000. The report said Libya's military remained poor and unable to acquire the huge amount of equipment it ordered from foreign contractors.
"Libya's current military leadership presides over a largely stored and surplus catalogue of weaponry with poor maintenance records," the report said. "The military also lacks sufficient numbers of trained personnel to operate the military equipment currently in its possession."
In 2006, Washington lifted its arms embargo on Libya. While the United States was said to have banned lethal weapons for export, European Union states have offered Tripoli a range of aircraft and other combat platforms.
www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_military0284_03_15.asp |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 20, 2011 9:46:14 GMT 1
A Polish saying: when nobody knows what it is all about, it is about money.
Libya's oil money has made it major world shareholder
The Libyan Investment Authority owns 3% of the FT, 7.5% of Juventus and a host of prime London properties
Libya's vast oil reserves have enabled it to invest more than $70bn (£43bn) around the world – making it a major shareholder in companies such as the Financial Times, Fiat and Juventus football club.
The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), the crisis-stricken country's main financial vehicle, spent £224m on a 3% stake in Pearson, the education group behind the Financial Times, last June.
The LIA recently set up a hedge fund in London and has bought a host of properties in the UK, paying £155m for Portman House, a 146,550 square foot retail complex on Oxford Street, and £120m for an office at 14 Cornhill – opposite the Bank of England in the heart of the City. Libya is expected to pour billions more dollars into Britain in the next few years.
Libya has been switching its ever-growing funds from low-yielding company shares into all manner of higher-return investments in recent years. Given the close relationship between Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and Colonel Gaddafi it is perhaps not surprising that Libya has many investments in Italy.
These include a stake of about 2% in Fiat, 7.5% of Juventus football club, a 2% stake in – and joint venture with – Italian aerospace and defence group Finmeccanica and 7.5% in UniCredit, the bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Mar 20, 2011 12:02:05 GMT 1
Bonobo,
Moammar Gadhafi always looked as a mentalist to me. He acted like a person who has an psychiatric illness, is bipolar or schizofrenic. I often thought that he was under the influence of hard drugs, coke, heroin or opium. I agree with you abpout the changing positions of the Western leaders.
Yes, in the past the Western leaders supported Sadam Hussein too in Iraq, because of the Iraqi oil and their fear for the power and the influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the leadership of Ruhollah Khomeini. I think in Libiya there their concern is a mix of the important oil refineries and supplies, their fear of an continued instability in the Maghreb (Nort-Africa) and the pressure of the Media, who portray the massacres, terror and wounded and dead of the Libyan cities and towns. And maybe there is one truth in Moammar Gadhafi's statements. The west does fear the influence of the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (previously known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), a radical Islamist militia which aims to overthrow the Algerian government and institute an Islamic state. This movement is currently engaged in an insurgent campaign. The West fears that in an Anarchistic Libya, where there are nomanslands between the Gadhafi regime and insergents, that Al-Qaeda may set up militia and terror cells in Libya. Algeria is nearby, Tunesia is not stabile right now and extremist forces from Egypt also might set foot in Libya, because the borders aren't guarded. These extremist forces from Egypt could be Egyptian, Palestinian, Saoudi or African people like Sudanese, Somali or Black african Islamists.
In the same time I want to state that I think that the revolutions in the Arab states are not staged by Islamists, but by secular forces. The insergents in Libya are ofcourse not Al Qiada, but like in Iraq Al Qiada might get influential there.
Pieter
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Mar 20, 2011 12:31:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 20, 2011 14:58:22 GMT 1
In the same time I want to state that I think that the revolutions in the Aran states are not staged by Islamists, but by secular forces. The insergents in Libya are ofcourse not Al Qiada, but like in Iraq Al Qiada might get influential there. Pieter I am afraid of the anti- terrorist security will have to be doubled because Gadaffi`s secret agents, "sleepers," will be unleashed onto Western facilities, especially airports and planes.
Prior to an emergency meeting of world leaders in Paris, Prime Minister Donald Tusk has announced that Poland does not intend to take part in any military action in Libya.
While no military activity on the part of Polish forces is foreseen, PM Tusk did say that Poland is prepared to take part in any eventual humanitarian activities in the north African country.
Speaking at a meeting of the Civic Platform Council in Warsaw, Saturday morning, Donald Tusk said that he would make the same announcement at an emergency summit of the EU, African Union, and Arab League in Paris later today.
“I will go [to Paris] with the information that […] Poland does not intend to take part in the military action in Libya,” Tusk said, adding, however, that the country is always ready “to provide solidarity to any NATO country which will find itself in danger.”
“But I want to make it loud and clear that Polish soldiers will take part in actions that safeguard the interests of Poland and NATO’s security only when they are in immediate danger,” Tusk exclaimed.
|
|
uncltim
Just born
I oppose most nonsense.
Posts: 73
|
Post by uncltim on Mar 20, 2011 20:33:58 GMT 1
Considering none of us has access to any real information about anything other than what has been released by various controlled outlets, this discussion really serves no purpose other than to occupy our time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 20, 2011 21:14:06 GMT 1
Considering none of us has access to any real information about anything other than what has been released by various controlled outlets, this discussion really serves no purpose other than to occupy our time. What discussion do you mean? Aaah, you are being sarcastic. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 1, 2011 21:50:21 GMT 1
Brzezinski challenges German and Polish stance on Libya
01.04.2011 12:07
photo - EPA/PAP Maurizio Gambarini
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US national security advisor, has criticised the passive stance of Germany and Poland towards the current military intervention in Libya.
Warsaw and Berlin have both refused to take part directly in the now NATO-led mission.
The former National Security Advisor to President Carter, whose father was Polish Consul General in Montreal prior to the Communist takeover of Poland, made the remarks in an interview with international broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
Whilst acknowledging the sensitive nature of Germany's military heritage, Brzezinski nevertheless argued that Berlin had made “an unfortunate decision”, by abstaining from the UN vote on a no-fly-zone in Libya.
“It seems to me that the crisis involving Libya is a crisis that provides the West with a rather unique opportunity for united action,” he said.
“I would have been more pleased if Germany had chosen to be in some fashion part of it, even if not necessarily a direct military participant.”
Likewise, Brzezinski did not shy away from criticising Poland's stance.
“I feel the same way about the somewhat passively neutral stand that Poland has taken on this issue,” he said, acknowledging his “obvious” personal reasons for taking an interest in Polish policy.
From the outset, Poland justified its lack of military participation in Libya as due to the fact that Polish troops were already serving in Afghanistan.
Similarly, Robert Tyszkiewicz, the Vice Chief of the Commission on Foreign Affairs, expressed that Poland's EU status also affected the decision.
“We are about to begin the presidency of the European Union,” he stressed in an interview with Polish Radio, “and its members have differing opinions on the intervention.”
Brzezinski concluded by saying that it is “up to the Germans themselves to decide what they feel collective security implies regarding their stand and their engagement.”
The only word of comment that comes to my mind is: F...k off!
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 1, 2011 23:20:54 GMT 1
Bonobo,
Poland has a past of close connections with Northern-African and Arab countries. That was in the time of the Peoples Republic. I hope that they kept those connections in the changing time, due to Polish national interests in oil, international diplomacy and certain agricultural products from Arab countries. Libya is important geopolitically due to it's position inbetween Egypt in the East, Algeria and Tunesia in the West, Sudan to the south east and Chad and Niger to the south. An anarchistic or chaotic Libya can be troublesome for the region, because it can harvest Pan-Arab Nationalist extremists (Baathists, Nassrists and Palestinian radicals) and Islamist forces. The Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (previously known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat) is located in Algeria and they can easily infiltrate in Libya and attract unemployed and young people of various tribes and maybe tribes with border crossing links. The Arabic Al Qaida can also reach Libya via Sudan, Chad or Niger. Via Egypt Palestinian extremists from Gaza, or extremist elements of the Egyptian brotherhood could interfear in Libyan internal politics.
I listened to reports of Dutch, American and Arab experts about the situation on the ground in Libya. A Dutch war correspondent (with experiance in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) said that a split of Libya in two halfs would be an option. Gadhafi's forces are to strong. In contrast to what we think in the West, he has more support than we imagine. I heard that about 30 to 40% of the civilians support him. That is partly due to tribal connection and loyalty and partly due to his 42 years in power whcih makes him one of the longest-serving rulers in history. In all those years generations of people were indoctrinated by his ideology, the opression of his regime, and partly also due to the progress he also brought to Libya. Libya was negative in the news, but the fact was neglected that the country was rich due to the oil, and was prospourous due to the irrigation projects the regime initiated.
I am not a fan of Gadhafi, but in the process of moderation and moving towards the West his regime would have become less bad in time, if the process of reforms, connections and trade with the West had continued.
How do we know that these rebels are "the Good guys"? What if the new regime will become worse? Like the Algerian regime. A militairy (rebel) regime of irresponsable adventurers, an Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood) regime, or just a continuation of Ghadafi's regime with a new leader, who comes from the old Ghadafi clan or group (one of the deserters). Time has a point that we have no factual information on the ground, that we do not have acces to the informants of our secret services and the CIA, who is there on the ground now. How will the developments go?
I have no judgement about the German and Polish approach. They have their national interests and will have a reason for their point of view. The Dutch are active participants in the coalition now with F16 patrolling the Libyan coast. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a hardliner and in Geopolitical sense always part of the warparty.
Pieter
|
|
