It seems to be getting more conveluted and confusing. Hearing news reports that US administration officials are now debating about giving arms directly to the rebel forces, even thought they admit they are not sure 'who they are'. Let me get this time line correct if I can. First we impose a no fly zone to stop Libyan air attacks on rebels. Then we expand air attacks to prevent Libyan ground forces from 'attacking' the rebels. Then we expand air attacks to aid the rebel attacks on Libyan government troops. Now we must provide arms to rebels directly or they are finished. Does anyone see a disturbing pattern emerging? If the arms are not enough, must we send 'advisors' to save the day? If the advisors are not enough, what then?
IMO more confusing than Nam, for instance who is the "we" you are referring to? BTW there are currently thousands of refugees at Pantelleria and water and food on the island is running low. So "we" are officially conducting air strikes to "protect" people from K but "we" do little of nothing for the refugees, most of then are comming across on overloaded and barely seaworthy boats, AFAIK at least one has already sunk this year (IIRC before the uprising) with large loss of lives.
So - the Libyan Foreign Minister 'unexpectedly' lands near London, some reports saying that he's seeking asylum, others that he's on a planned diplomatic mission...... I couldn't help but think that if he'd been flying a Bf110 you could call him Rudolf......
The 'we' is us, the western coallition. No military boots on the ground, yet, but CIA wingtips seem to have been there for days at least.
Wow I never thought wars was this expansive I geuss technology has its downsides Libya attack costs approaching a billion | Capitol Hill Blue
If the article linked is correct than the US is spending, 4 to 14 million per day on our humanitarian effort to bomb Gadaffi into the stone age. I feel better already
Urqh had tried 2 or 3 times to point out the seeming hipocracy about why Libya and not Bahrain? The Saudis have dirty hands. They are killing their own people. So why Libya? ..Also a little sad Skipper never mentioned Canada as being involved. Canadian General Charles Bouchard is in command of that show.We seem to always fly under everyones radar... Our GNP compared to other NATO countries is a joke. But we are there.
Remember a joint SAS/MI6 team was thrown out of Libya on the 7th March Willam Hague's botched Libya SAS mission was a 'serious misunderstanding' | Mail Online
Hi poppy sorry for not mentionning the Canadians. I only heard once about them on TV. I should have remembered though.
Refugees at Lampedusa are now down to around 3700 but the ships are unable to dock due to bad weather so the situation is still pretty bad. Can't immagine what it could be like for any small boat still at sea, IIRC 2nd Sirte was about this time of year and the Regia Marina lost two destroyers to heavy weather in that operation. I'm unable to determine the Italian air foce partecipation, the defence minister states they did some SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) missions while the prime minister made a statement that no Italian plane fired or will fire, what were doing? just providing ECM support to other forces? Reports of casualties from coalition strikes put deaths in Tripoli at around 40. Think the objective is not to "bomb Khadaffi into the stone age" but rather to "bomb him out of power", as to what happens after that we are not being told, IMO each "coalition" member has his own agenda. Currently it looks like he is not letting go that easily, apparently the insurgents, without heavy weapons and training, are incapable of overcommining the forces still loyal to K but the situation is very confused.
I did and it isn't. The source you posted simply mentions that there are those with AQ links among the opponents to Gadhafi. No surprise there at all. You stated that the opposition to Gadhafi was controlled by AQ. Big difference. Are they western opinion makers or liberal or both? You are not being very consistent in your descriptions. If you are talking liberal "opinionmakers" or at least those who aspire to that label at least some do have pretty strong convictions which is in many cases part of the problem. It's certianly not clear to me that a "revolution of Islam fundamentalism" is conquering the ME. Certainly there are a number of such revolutions on going but few have been successful and few have much prospect of being so. In summary your rant is rather unclear and not particularly accurate.
Not so much hypocrisy but practicality. The leaders in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia haven't managed to piss off most of the rest of the world nor are there activities as blatant or as excessive.
See post 262 from Belasar:first air attacks,no results,then providing arms,and if there are no results,what? military advisers ? and ,if there is no result ? Ground troops ? Do you see a disturbing pattern emerging ?
about the opposition to K : 1st option :they are honest freedom fighters (but at my age,I don't believe in Santa Claus) 2nd option :they belong to tribes hostile to K,and are controlled-teleguided by Al Qaeda a)the responsible dor the defense of Dernah was fighting against the US in Afghanistan b)there have been rebellions in Libya in the past,controlled by Al Qaeda c) suddenly,there are rebellions in Tunesia,Egypt,Libya,Jemen,Syria ,all against rulers hostile to Al Qaeda:at my age,I don't believe in coincidences d) the idea of freedom fighters,fighting for liberty and such things,is totally unfamiliar to the ME. If the rebels win,I am certain of the following: -they will massacre their enemies -than they will fight each other -the winner will fill his pockets -meanwhile,the economy will collapse -and he will be replaced by AQ men or puppets .
An other source is : No Intervention In Libya /Suffolk County Liberty Report Or Libya :the West and AQ on the same side(by the Telegraph) Or Special Report:Libya's Tribal dynamics Or Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point Of course,you will reply they all are biased (=not concurring with your POV)
This is a rather extreme false dichotomy. In dealing with your 1) above it's pretty clear that at least some are indeed honest freedom fighters. Others are not. With respect to 2) some indeed are in tribes hostile to Gadhafi. But some are from his own tribe as well. More over it's pretty clear that no one really controls them much less AQ and certainly not to a level that could be described as teleguided. Care to point out one of any significance? Care to name a ruler in the ME that isn't hostile to AQ? Rather detracts from your point does it not? That seems to be another flawed assumption on your part. Now it may be that they are not all that common but it's rather clear the concept is well known. That is possible as are any of a number of other outcomes. That you don't expect them does nothing to change the fact that they are real possibilities and have at least some prospect of coming to fruition.