Talk Elections

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12477275

"Hundreds of people have clashed with police and pro-government supporters in the Libyan city of Benghazi, reports say.

Eyewitnesses told the BBC the overnight unrest followed the arrest of an outspoken critic of the government.

The lawyer was later said to have been released but the protests continued.

Pro-democracy protests have swept through several Arab countries in recent weeks, forcing the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt from power.

A call has been put out on the internet for protests across Libya on Thursday."

...

This is by far the worst regime that has had any type of unrest in it, so I'm really hoping this one goes.

Benghazi, 2nd city of the country, is in the East, the 'Egyptian part', the most anti-regime part of the country, and the city itself is seen as the most intellectual protesting city usually, which, outside of the fact that they are quite far from Tripoli, might also be because it would be the part of the country that receives the less money from oil.

Then so far apparently the protest has been the biggest in Eastern cities, but yesterday something quite important happen, a police station and a building of the 'Revolutionary Guards', 2 of the tough forces of this regime then, have been attacked in Zenten 145 kms down to Tripoli, then in the Western part, the 'Tunisian one'.

With its Tunisian and Egyptian part Libya could be still more inclined to go, but knowing the guy would lead the regime that could be quite tough there.

Nothing moved in Tripoli so far, but that's also the place in which people benefit the most of the money of the regime.

If something really happen there then it could take a Tunisian scenario, in which it is first the traditional places of protest in the less rich parts of the country that go, and then step by step other territories, and the capital in the end.

Could really become quite tough, just wish the best to them.

I'm not an expert on Libyan politics, but it appears the U.S. tolerates the Gaddafi regime now since he's piped down over the years.......do you think there are more stable elements who can seize power?

Libya already has the highest death number in a very few days. 84 dead people in 6 days, and yesterday we were only at about 20. And this is only from HRW which only has some observers in a very few cities in Libya.

Images from Tobruk (close to Egyptian border) were quite strong yesterday, big gathering and people making fall symbols of the regime, which would show that, like in other Arab countries, the fear has fallen, that remains in the East though, traditional region of protest, the fact to make pass those videos all over the Internet might make people more motivated in other parts of the country, but, indeed, yesterday night, Internet has been cut.

And I just hear that it become quite nasty in Benghazi, police opened fire on crowds during a mourning, 15 dead people, some report that some antiaircraft missiles have been used.

There are a lot of horrible regimes involved. I think the Saudis have Libya beat. If you're a woman, you might be better off living in North Korea than Saudi Arabia. 15/19 hijackers and Bin Laden himself are from Saudi Arabia. All and all, a pretty crappy country.

Events in Libya certainly prove again why anti-Western dictatorships are more likely to hang on than pro-Western ones. Since countries like Libya don't depend on good relations with the West anyway, they don't need to care whether crushing the protests by force is gonna annoy their non-existing allies in America/Europe. So, let's just put the protesters against the wall and be done with it...

Anti-aircraft missiles? That's nasty.

Libya doesn't allow foreign journalists in; this means that it's extremely hard to get an accurate picture of what's happening there.

The actual figures will be much higher than 84.

I doubt we're ever going to know the precise figures.

According to HRW and hospital sources it's now 173 dead people since Tuesday.

Not sure what's the worth of it but yesterday a Libyan exiled in USA said that there were also fights and big repression in the west of the country too.

The potentiality of expected nastiness seems to be confirmed there.

I need to hear more about that but there would be some officials that would have protested against this, asking to stop the blood bath now. Hopefully all those death could at least create a trauma that would make people within the regime trying to stop it and to oppose Gaddafi.

Indeed Gaddafi answered to all European criticisms that if they continued interference comments he would stop to cooperate on regulation of immigration (surrealist attempt of deal in this context, but with Gaddafi you may surely expect everything). Hopefully he would find some actual resistance within his regime, the guy is in place for about 40 years now, and plans to give power to one of his sons, like in Egypt such thing might not be very pleasant to some guys of the political elite/army.

It seems that at the moment the protests are in the east of the country, where Kadhafi has been hated for a long time. Until the protests spread to Tripoli, his regime will probably be not in too much danger.
I also hope that the regime goes, but not Qaddafi personally...

[/quote]
You are very much behind the times. Libya is at the moment quite a darling of the West. For example, remember the disgraceful way in which the UK released the Lockerbie bomber.


Note: The various spellings of the name of the tyrant pretending to rule in the name of the Libyan people are intentional.

Actually that particular process started with the ludicrous trial. But the situation wrt Libya is still quite different; the regime does not need Western support to remain secure in power.

Trivia: With 41-and-a-half years in office, Gaddafi is currently the longest serving non-royal head of state in the world (and the third-longest serving if we count monarchs).

It's like Tunisia and Egypt set off a whole storeroom of dynamite.

Technically true, but it legitimizes the fiction that Castro is not really the leader of Cuba.

There's some reports that an army unit has defected.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Latest-Up-To-120-Die-As-Libyan-Authorities-Arrest-Networks-Of-Foreign-Agents/Article/201102315937134?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15937134_Libya_Latest%3A_Up_To_120_Die_As_Libyan_Authorities_Arrest_Networks_Of_Foreign_Agents


Also of interest...

Quick question: what is "Nicolae Ceausescu" in Libyan Arabic?

Yeah, time to waste the f**ker.

that would truly be awesome, but I don't expect Ghaddafi to be overthrown without a lot of bloodshed, probably even worse than Romania 1989, as anti-regime elements of the army duke it out with pro-regime elements, the security services, and mercenaries.

The Romanian parallel is a good one. Ghaddafi's regime was the most entrenched of the Arab dictatorships, and will therefore require the most extreme action to overthrow. It's probably also the one most independent of foreign support. In 1989, Ceausescu was not only the most repressive of the Warsaw Pact dictators, he was also the one most independent of Moscow, which partly explains why Romania had the most violent revolution of the East European states, and also had by far the most difficult transition to democracy afterward.

Folks, Libya is up in arms. News media can't cover the story as they did in Egypt, because it is a far darker regime there. Just think about it: Libya has some of the most gorgeous coastlines in the world, and you'll get to vacation there without bankrolling the iron rule of a terrible, horrible dictator. So lend your thoughts and prayers for a Free Libya.

P.S. If Qaddafi gets overthrown it would be interesting to find out happened to Musa al-Sadr.

I think Algeria was actually the first of the North Africa states to have protests (mid December?), though they haven't been as successful.

I expect this to be quite bloody, regardless of how it ends up, probably just the start.  And will have a big impact on oil.

SKADOOSH! (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122131439291589.html)

This is the one where the west has the most influence. Gadaffi's personal guard who he's obviously going to need are basically nothing more than highly paid mercenaries, Blackwater-type thugs. And their payment comes from offshore bank accounts. If Gadaffi's assets were frozen, no more payment, and he's done. And if he cracks down bloodily, that becomes far more likely to happen. Guy is really stuck.

Back when he was a Soviet ally, his bodyguards were East Germans. In recent years, Gadaffi has become notorious for traveling with a coterie of attractive female bodyguards. One wonders how they'll fare in all of this. There have been lots of reports that the regime is using African mercenaries.

Yeah with an army rebellion that's who he'll have to rely on. Cut off his funds, and he'll have no means of keeping control.

Useless. You and I know that the Ghaddafis have vaults full of $100 bills, gold, and silver under the palace. It has been reported that North Koreans are among the mercenaries, and that a plane full of mercenaries left for Libya from Zimbabwe (probably a mutual pact to suppress revolts between the world's worst dictators). Once it becomes clear the regime is finished the mercenaries will vanish. Unfortunately it will take a lot of blood to make the regime finished.

So in the last day, army units defected and helped demonstrators seize control of Benghazi, various tribes have openly announced support for them, 3 or more ambassadors have resigned in protest, and government buildings and the state TV building are on fire in Tripoli. Things moved in a hurry....

Intrade:

Gaddafi to no longer be leader of Libya as of Dec. 31, 2011: 63.0

BBC reporting that Gadaffi has 'fled' Tripoli

For real this time?

It's saying it's from 'confirmed sources'; the BBC are less trigger-happy when it comes to making such announcments than other news sources so I hope it's legitimate.

Good to see a handmade new versions of the Red Black Green flag being waved. It's missing the Islamic crescent so 'OMFG I5LAMIZTS!' should take note. Of course maybe they couldn't be arsed stitching one on.

'East of the country now out of government hands' - BBC

Somebody got a decent web translator? I'm a little too lazy, but all of you ought to read this interview.

http://www.fr-online.de/kultur/debatte/-niemand-spricht-von-demokratie-/-/1473340/7217492/-/index.html

Al Jazeera says they're using fighter jets to bomb protesters in Tripoli. Holy shiat. This has never been used to crust anti-government protests anywhere. The guy's going down hard.

William Hague has suggested Gaddafi may be on his way to Venezuela (?)

If so the Grauniad comments will go into melt down

Apparently Chavez's government has denied this. I think at this point it would be crazy even by his standards to give shelter to this guy - it would be a PR nightmare.

This story really makes it sound like the regime is on its last legs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22libya.html?_r=1

Weird:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1620929.php/Libyan-jets-believed-to-be-defecting-land-in-Malta-Roundup

What a fycking crazy regime.

BBC:

Which the U.S. has mostly left alone.......

As an aside, you have to be a little amused at the obvious horror of British politicians and diplomats to the way the regime is acting. I mean, we sold them (some of) the weapons, didn't we? Does the Foreign Office believe that weapons sold to dubious regimes (or legit ones in pursuit of dubious causes; c.f. India in the context of Kashmir) are only ever used in parades?

The same basic comment can be photocopied for other uses with the names of the relevant countries (both the sellers and the buyers) altered when appropriate.

Yeah, some very gory images coming out.  They have been using heavy munitions. Hopefully the rest of the military turns on the regime and this can end ASAP.

Just to be fair.

Senator Richard Lugar - May 2006

    "Libya is a success story for American foreign policy that is the result of years of careful diplomacy aimed at bringing Libya into the mainstream.

    Although we still have areas of disagreement with the Libyan government, it has repeatedly renounced terrorism, substantially improved its human rights record, and initiated steps to encourage more foreign investment. It has opened up its weapons of mass destruction programs and is cooperating with the destruction of its chemical weapons facilities. In addition, it is providing substantial cooperation in the areas of counter-terrorism and regional security. The intensive U.S. diplomatic effort to convince Libya of the strategic benefits of this course can serve as a model for future successes with other countries of similar circumstance.

    As one of the authors of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which has worked in cooperation with the states of the former Soviet Union to safeguard and destroy WMD arsenals, I am particularly hopeful about the opportunity to work with Libya to safely dismantle its chemical weapons programs. Since its renunciation of WMD in December 2003, Libya has signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and agreed to spot inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Libya has committed to eliminate all of its ballistic missiles beyond a 300-kilomater range with a payload of 500 kilograms and agreed to abide by Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines in the future. Libya played a major role in the exposure of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear black market and continues to provide information on the Khan network. In early 2004, Libya worked closely with the United States on the dismantlement and transfer of the infrastructure of its nuclear weapons program, including their missile delivery system...

    The Bush Administration and Congress will continue to foster this transformation. In particular, we need to ensure that more Americans are able to travel to Libya to do business. In Tripoli, I encountered business people from China, India, Europe, and elsewhere, who were there to negotiate energy deals and other commercial arrangements. American companies should take similar steps to explore the possibilities of the Libyan market."

While I doubt Megrahi will go back to prison where he belongs for his role in Pan-Am 103 as a result of this, with the Gadaffis gone, it looks like the decision to send Megrahi back to Libya won't have gained BP much after all.  Heck, if BP's facilities in Libya take damage, it might even cost them.

Maybe Ireland will grant him asylum? There's going to be a hell of a lot of very sad people in Ireland and among Irish-Americans if Gadaffi goes down after all. Has Gerry Adams spoke in favor of him yet?

I don't think there are many countries depraved enough out there to grant that sociopath asylum.

The decision had nothing to do with BP. It was a decision made on compassionate grounds made by the Scottish Government. In retrospect the Labour government favoured it (though they seem to have fogetten to tell their leader in Scotland...) but the British government had no jurisdiction over devolved matters pertaining to Scots Law.

But Gadaffi was the IRA's best friend in the 70s and 80s.

Well, fair enough. I'm not well-versed enough on Irish politics to have an informed opinion on this.

Not really a friend, more a sugar daddy. And you know better than to conflate the IRA with the Irish Government...

Didn't Nick Griffin go over to Libya to try to get weapons or money or something at some point? I remember reading that somewhere.

Well it has Sinn Fein in their parliament. Maybe they'll argue for granting him asylum.

By that definition maybe Northern Ireland will too ::)

The UK certainly will. -_-

When dictators play ball with us, we quietly support them.

No obviously he does not know. I doubt he knows that Sinn Fein reps and IRA statements were not even allowed to be mentioned on RTE for decades.  And of course the armed campaign of PIRA has been over for 15 years now.  There are plenty of Western nations (Italy) and corporations who have played ball with Qadaffi and a lot more recently/presently.  

Maltese government officials say the two Libyan pilots (who landed bombers in Malta) defected having been ordered to bomb protesters. One of them has requested political asylum, Reuters reports.

It isn't really that simple in Libya.  The ultimate question is going to be, if the Gaddafi's lose control of Tripoli (we ain't there yet), is where the tribes end up and whether Gaddafi's tribe will give up its position or rather choose to fight.  The only guarantee, as I posted last night, is that it will be bloody and oil will shoot the moon.

The "bloody" is indisputable, but oil shooting the moon is really more dependent on the length of time the disturbances last than the intensity of the disturbances.  I could very easily see the situation, if not "calm," at least orderly enough to do business within a month.

Yeah, it never is that simple, however, having the Air Force and Army refuse to bomb protesters will be a key step in resolving this.  Ive been watching some of the videos leaking out and they have really been just mowing people down.

Whether it was because of pressure due to trade or because of doubts about whether Megrahi had been fairly convicted, it is quite clear MacAskill chose to bend over backwards in making his determination over Megrahi's probable life expectancy.  To use a Lincoln metaphor, when a number of people bring timbers together that form the frame of a house, it is difficult to believe that they were not working to a common plan.  Megrahi's release involved a number of small decisions that only collectively allowed him to return to Libya.  All one can say positively about the Scottish Government's role in the matter was they chose not to look too critically at whether what they had been told about Megrahi's chance of survival was correct.

Looks like Libya's delegation to the UN(!) is calling for Qaddafi's ouster.

Has this ever happened before?  The closest thing I can think of is Thailand's UN delegation, hearing in the middle of a meeting that Thaksin had been overthrown.

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFN2122551120110221

It seems his diplomats aren't the most loyal bunch out there. Which is rather good of course.

The old Libyan flag is flying from the Embassy in London.

BBC Monitoring: "'Libyan military source confirms orders were issued for the aerial bombardment of Benghazi within two hours,'" reported Al-Arabiya TV in an urgent screen caption at 1947 GMT."

Thailand gave shelter to Pol Pot.

And the United States provided support to the KR for a long time after 1979.

Two pilots defected to Malta rather than carry out the order.

Unfortunately it seems some have carried out the orders if reports are correct.

Correct, but that seems to be a kind of confirmation.

Oh wow, turns so nasty, but Saif Al Islam Gaddafi told it yesterday evening: civil war till the last bullet.

Gaddafi (father) has to speak soon I heard.

Also, from a civilian interviewed a few mins ago on France24, he described quite precisely how fight after fight Benghazi is totally fallen in the hands of protesters, apparently with the help of the army, to the point that civilians are now trying to set order there.

Also, big mess on the Tunisian border, besides the fact that several thousand of refugees are arriving on the border, Gaddafi militias would be trying to spread terror there too.

And according to Austrian army, the plane that should have taken Austrian citizens can't land, Libyan airspace would be shut.

Ah, and, Libyan TV:

http://wwitv.com/tv_channels/b5550.htm

No, was Tunisia, which started after the immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi on the 17th of December. One week of riots took place in Algeria in the beginning of January, after the protest was seriously taking Tunisia, to be fair riots became quite common in Algeria (about 10,000 in 2010 for example) but that week was quite violent and widespread. It's kinda one of the problem of Algeria which spontaneously uses to go toward riots rather than protest gathering, but that's an other topic.

Labour's Douglas Alexander woeful on Newsnight infact borderline disgusting in refusing to call on Ghadaffi to stop killing civilians, or condemning the sale of £200 million of crowd control equipment to Libya last year.

Congrats, beating France in Tunisia.

So bloody situation indeed will help to excite all passions, apparently a big preacher is calling for the army to kill Gaddafi.

And besides bombing people, army seems to have taken the lesson from Benghazi where protesters took control of arms, and bombs arms stocks.

That may be that chap that Ken Livingstone is buddies with, I forget his name.

.k, Austrian army now says that it is not shut, and it was only Tripoli.

I don't know if that matches, but his name is Cheikh Youssef Al-Qardawi (85 years), and is presented as a very influential Arab preacher, and he made his call on Al Jazeera.

That's him! Ken was supposed to host him in London when he was mayor but unfortunately for Ken it's not really acceptable to officially host a man who calls for gays to be killed and who praises Hitler's anti-semitism.

Ah well, then I hope he is as 'very influential' as Western media pretend the old guards of MB is.

Anyhow, interesting, in Benghazi, the flags waving are those of the monarchy chased by Gaddafi.

http://twitter.com/SeifIslamGaddfi

Oh, yeah. He speaks...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12533069

Not for those with a feeble stomach:

http://arabrevolution.posterous.com/libyan-hit-with-high-caliber-in-the-head-very

(Picture of a protestor shot trough the head by a government sniper)

I've noticed an uncanny trend between this uprising and the Romanian one in 1989:

1989: Romania is the most closed of the Eastern Bloc and no one expects Ceausescu to be toppled quickly.
2011: Libya is the most closed of the Arab World and no one expects Gaddafi to be toppled quickly.

1989: small dispute over a church minister escalates into anti-regime protests.
2011: small dispute over a human rights activist's arrest escalates into anti-regime protests.

1989: church minister is quickly released, but protests escalate further.
2011: human rights activist is quickly released, but protests escalate further.

1989: riots begin in a remote corner of Romania, and initially Ceausescu uses brute force to try to crush them.
2011: riots begin in a remote corner of Libya, and initially Gaddafi uses brute force to try to crush them.

1989: when riots spread, Ceausescu uses mercenaries and accuses the west of fomenting the unrest.
2011: when riots spread, Gaddafi uses mercenaries and accuses the west of fomenting the unrest.

1989: extremely shocking reports of violence against civilians surface in the global media, while the army starts defecting.
2011: extremely shocking reports of violence against civilians surface in the global media, while the army starts defecting.

1989: Ceausescu stages mass pro-government rally on TV, which ends in the revolt spreading into the square.
2011: Gaddafi stages mass pro-government rally on TV, which ends in a humiliating speech at the back of a car holding an umbrella.

1989: rumours of Ceausescu fleeing to Iran or China dog him during the confusion.
2011: rumours of Gaddafi fleeing to Venezuela god him during the confusion.

1989: Ceaucescu flees Bucharest hoping to drum up support in his hometown.
2011: (some reports at this stage) Gaddafi flees Triploi hoping to drum up support in his hometown.

Anything else I missed?

...seriously? You'd think that someone who's been in power for four decades could think of something that's a less obvious lie than that.

Interesting similarity of events.

Just a few bits about Gaddafi though, he ironically accused some Arab organizations in the country to be the source of all of this, and then he also went with an hostage taking from 'Al Qaeda', I heard nothing about the West, wouldn't be surprised he would have used it too though. Ah and, about the hometown, Sirte, during the day an NGO said it was fallen in the hands of protesters, though AFP called people there and they have been told it was calm, dunno then.

Last news:

AFP reports the call of UN Libyan diplomats for the army to oust Gaddafi 'to organize themselves and to walk on Tripoli to cut the head of the snake'.

He's clearly done now, the point being how long will it take, and what will it take. For the flee, not sure he would have a lot of choices of destination with what just happened.

Hopefully the Ceauşescu analogy is carried to its natural conclusion and they shoot the bastard.

I think he's burned too many bridges for the Saudis to accept him.  At this point, he's likely limited to Zimbabwe, and even then it likely wouldn't be something publicly acknowledged.

Intensity is more important than length.

North Korea, Iran, and Uzbekistan are also possibilities. Saudi Arabia is definitely off the table as Ghaddafi's intelligence service attempted to assassinate King (then Crown Prince) Abdullah as recently as 2003.

EDIT: "Muammar al-Gaddafi to no longer be leader of Libya before midnight ET 31 Dec 2011 " is now trading at 84% on Intrade.

Does Ghaddafi necessarily want to leave?  Might he be nuts enough to stay and fight well past the point at which it's clear staying means death?


Yeah, I think he's toast.

I certainly hope so. I mean, he got in fighting, so it's only fitting he goes out the same way. Then again, it may just be me being all for full circle.

Considering that Gadaffi is a rather nutty, egotistical true believer type while Mubarak and Ben Ali were just standard bureaucratic authoritarians him opting to stay and fight to the end does kind of make sense.

Remind me why Libya is on the UN's Human Rights Council.

OMG

On 21st Feb. 2011 during the Libyan awakening movement against the dictatorship of Gaddafi it has been claimed by a Libyan opposition activist Mr. Sami Al Masrati that Imam Musa Al- Sadr is still alive. He added Eyewitnesses have seen today a man resembling Imam Musa Al-Sadr who has been transferred in a small aircraft to an unknown place. Before this the Libyan opposition leader and the founder of Tabo Tribal Liberation Front Essa Abdulmajeed Mansoor had told that Imam Musa Sadr is still alive and was seen in the jail of Sabha.

I like the Guardian; it's a good paper. It's columnists are on a different planet but the commenting public are nuts

So some light relief. While the rest of the world is gripped by the Arab revolutions let's take a look at the reactions of the Guardian's loyal readership;

-------------------------

"Muhamed GHadaffi is one of the last real African Leaders. He is not a puppet like most of the rest. Thats why people are being incited. Foreigners are trying to colonise us! AFRICA, LetS not celebrate the fall of one of our LAST TRUE KINGS! ALUTA CONTINUA GHADAFFI ! WE AWAIT THE UNITED STATES OF AFRICA !"

"Solar cycle starting right now is due to be a big one, ANOTHER earthquake in Chile, one in NZ, the ring of fire appears to be waking up. The only one who has got away so far is the west coast of the USA, are they ready? does printed money rebuild cities? Shaky bum time!
looks like question time for our species, shall we continue to ignore the hemp plant or get more shovels to dig faster into hell?"

"and Trotsky was but a disciple of Vlad Ilych even if he turned on him eventually"

"Then through the Governments and their spies they took our money and gold that families from across the world donated to build the Temple Of Understanding to save this Earth and our Species. We held on to faith and recollected enough for Seven Temples On Seven Hills."

"I think Gaddafi's car is for a disabled person. (No offence to genuine physically disabled people of course)."

"And Trotsky never 'turned' on Lenin. I presume you have plucked that bit of nonsense from the same dark, smelly place as the rest of the sh**te."

"And what is David Cameron, the NON-ELECTED prime minister of this island doing in Egypt? ? ? ? ?  ? ?  ? ? ? ? ? ? He wants to be another Lawrence of Arabia ? ? ? ? ? ? What is going one here? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"

"What about that stupid wedding coming in April? Was not Gadaffi and other Arab "kings" invited to the show? Now the lists have changed slightly eh? like the "british" diplomacy?

WAHT IS THE POSITION OF THIS NON-ELECTED GOVERNMENT WITH REOSECT TO ALL THIS?"

The morons who comment on comment is free aren't exactly typical of the paper's actual readership, though (sigh) there are those towards the top of the paper that don't get that...

I do sometimes wonder whether comment is free is an elaborate joke; an attempt to prove C.P. Scott right about the quote it gets its name from.

This from another forum I frequent; one poster spotted that those two Libyan fighters were armed with rocket pods, leading credence to the pilots' claims. (http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=12838&st=0)

Gaddafi's making a speech; it's a bit of a rant to put it mildly.

He basically said that he won't give up power and rather die a martyr. He then went on to refer to the protestors as "cockroaches".

Impressive speech by its pathetic level. Would pretty much show what an over-panicked human being who has nothing to lose can display to try to gain support.

Well, he basically called for a totally new dreaming country indeed, and in a total civil war in the same time with his 'committees of protection', hopefully he won't find a lot of support.

The guy wanna appear tough and martyr and all, but, unlike Mubarak who seemed actually tough, I would wonder whether he would be actually as brave as that, that being said as stated yesterday foreign destinations for him would be tiny. I wouldn't see him able for suicide as well. The guy will certainly need to be caught by someone, he could try to flee in his own country too, in a Saddam Hussein way, somewhere in his tribe, and why not posting videos/messages in a Bin Laden way till he be caught (from where was he speaking here by the way?? seemed like an half-burned building). Hope he be caught, the soonest possible, an international trial would 'something' with him though.

An epic speech. It easily surpasses Ceausescu in it's vapidness. He's going to die like Ceausescu too; it's what he wants. I think there are enough who will oblige.

Lol, France24 stopped the broadcasting of the speech for about 10 mins now and he's still speaking.

Best Quote;

"It's impossible for the youth to follow anyone else. If not Gaddafi, who else would they follow? Somebody with a beard?"

Iam offended by that.

So am I :) Even if it is beginning to itch somewhat.

His speech lasted over an hour.  He included a bit where he declared death sentences on...everyone.

Ceausescu's last speech with English subtitles. Notice the 'pasted on' crowd doesn't match the genuine shots

"Hallo, Hallo, Hallo?"

It all goes wrong at 2:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWIbCtz_Xwk&feature=related

I'd say that he's lost it but that would imply something less than entirely true.

We'll be talking about this "speech" in 100 years, folks.

Looks like Gaddafi's sanity is well on its way to go down with Gaddafi.

Have I missed the administration's outrage?

I agree, it could reach an historical level.

Also, about news, a France2 (2nd French TV channel) journalists team has apparently been the 1st journalists to enter in Libya, by the east, monarchy flags everywhere from the Egyptian border to Tobruk, and Tobruk is apparently fallen in the hands of protesters.

You mean you hold out hope that he hasn't lost the battle yet?

Does anyone have a link to the speech?

You mean no more mono-green flag once democracy comes? I think I support Gaddafi now.

Can anyone here see a Lybian Hama in the next few days? Or is Gadaffi already past that point of authority and are his mercenaries the only things left between Lybia and the end of his regime?


EDIT: Am I he only one hearing rumours about Italian mercenaries?

monochromatic flags = fail

Apparently, the only network that bothered to broadcast the entire thing was Libyan state TV, and they didn't have English translators (for obvious reasons).

Here's the first ~hour or so of the speech with subtitles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FstrPo1X7S8 (First 15 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh9O4rq1o1A (Next 10 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9MQD38nmOs (Next 6 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WO9BrXA3Q (Next 8 minutes, this is the part where he talks about drugs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlEBDT-gaew  (Next 12 minutes)

So, there you go.  1 hour of the speech.  It's still missing another 20 minutes or so.

Tomorrow would answer the 1st question.

Didn't hear about Italian mercenaries, well, mercenaries would be independent by definition anyways. Anyhow, from all the records I heard seems that, yeah, besides the bombing of the most rebellious districts of Tripoli, and the fact that some of the shootings would have been made from helicopters, seems that most of shootings would have been blindly made by mercenaries with war weapons.

Quite an illuminating speech.
Finally Gaddaffi has moved closer to the position of the demonstrators!
In light of this bizarre statement, I'm wondering if there is a  weapon in the Libyan arsenal that hasn't been used yet against the protesters? The navy? Long range missiles?

Gaddafi has already lost several cities and seems to have no means of getting them back. The Minister of Interior is variously reported as having joined the opposition or having been assassinated. Gaddafi's rambling speech may have strengthened the resolve of the protesters, as it sent the message they will be killed even if they back down. The death toll will almost certainly be in the thousands before all this is over.

Al Jazeera's been running that "I will die a martyr in the end" line constantly.  They seem to really hope that it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  (So do I, of course)

Perhaps he's just pissed off with himself for abandoning his WMD programme? Or maybe he was lying when he told the world that he had done so.

Maybe we should ask this guy;

()

Where is our glorious Middle East Peace Envoy anyway?

Foreign reporters are now able to enter the country, or at least those controlled by the protesters. It sounds like the military in the eastern areas has defected almost entirely to the opposition side and is keeping the peace there, so things in those areas are stabilizing for the time being from the sounds of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12546806

Or that one on the left:

()

'You let me be a Superman by saving the 7 Bulgarian nurses (and the Palestinian doctor, we care less but while we're at it) jailed and tortured for years just 2 months after I've been elected and just before taking my summer vacations, with my wife appearing as a Wonder Woman, and you'll be allowed to have some French civilian nuclear technologies into your hands, the past is the past after all, we can as well forget it'

'Hmm, .k, but more of that I want a full trip in Paris, about one week, I want to appear like king in the city, I want the Louvre for me and my staff alone, and I want to put my big Bedouin tent into the garden of your Presidential Palace, .k?'

'Well, deal'...'Me and my wife saved the nurses!!'

()

(find the French girl)

Ah, and, speaking of glorious diplomatic people, it has been dug out an interview of our new nonetheless glorious ambassador in Tunisia, Boris 'get the trade contracts!-you are so stupid to ask questions about what our Foreign Affairs Minister did in Tunisia during unrest!-I want to implement a new philosophy!-am I not sexy in swim suit?' Boillon saying on a big daily evening talk show a few months ago while he was still ambassador in Baghdad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MURjPnCk-WQ

Journalist: Gaddafi calls you 'my son'.

B.B.: 'well, yes'

People around the table: 'Wow'

B.B.: 'Well, let's stop preconceived ideas, Gaddafi has maybe in the past been a terrorist'

Journalist: 'Maybe??'

B.B.: 'Ok, not maybe, he has been a terrorist, but all of this is past now, he has made his self-criticism, we can all do mistakes'

Arab world will love to discover the 'new philosophy' of French diplomacy of our cute BB.

()

The guy who is a French ambassador for a while now still had this pic on the profile of a kind of French facebook. New philosophy all the way!

There's reports that the navy have already been used.

Hot :)

()

"See what I'm pointing to? That's the CIA/Israeli/whomever that is responsible, not me!"

Hot.

Is the use of the old royal tricolor an indication that the as-Senussi line could hope to return to the throne (presumably as constitutional monarchs) or just that it is the old pre-Ghadaffi flag?

That could be an issue in itself; there are two pretenders to the throne.

I had thought that by those who care about such things, Muhammad was widely regarded as the true pretender and Idris as a scalawag and a con artist.

Who else agrees that alcohol being illegal in Libya is enough justification to overthrow the government and kill anyone who supports it?

Whatever government replaces the current one will not legalize alcohol.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-mideast-protests-20110223,0,2508820,full.story

Aye, but given he's already announced his intentions to return to Libya, Idris could still make a ruckus of things when Gaddafi goes.

Musa al-Sadr. Believe.

A Libyan warship defects to Malta:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-warship-defects-to-malta.html

Third biggest city, situated in Western Libya (previously under government control), Misurata reported to have fallen to the protesters.

Oh they are well dancing and singing in Tobruk right now.


Yeah, heard that yesterday night. I just heard that the chief of the army would have joined the protest too, but it isn't confirmed, only comes from some blogs. Some people say he would only have the Air Force with him, and well, mercenaries.

About the post-Gaddafi times, there is no state system there, I would hope it wouldn't turn into a civil war between tribes. The tribal aspect would still be important since Gaddafi didn't even try to change that, and the country would also be divided in 2 cultural spheres (Tunisian and Egyptian), but for example, in Benghazi, historically the most protesting city against central power, when unrest began there, I heard that one of the big slogan was simply 'LYBIA! LIBYA! LIBYA!'. Who knows, maybe it could turn into a kind of UAE, the 'United Tribes of Libya', dunno, maybe something like this under a symbolic monarchy. Libya has always been my biggest interrogation mark for a post-revolution time, I don't know much about the reality of Islamist movements there too, but as they have apparently been arrested a lot under Gaddafi, I would surprised they wouldn't count, especially in a country which apparently didn't care much about developing something beyond its traditional schemes, although Gaddafi regime apparently also procured some education, some alphabetization at least. I would hope Islamist movements follow the 'Mediterranean Islamist AKP trend'.

'New flag'...

()

...makes me think to an other flag...

()

I hope it won't become the 'Afghanistan/KSA of Mediterranea', but well, all of this is conjectures so far, they still have to get rid of their current regime and the outcome of it would also certainly be important for the future of the country, may they find the best ways possible.

After Justice one yesterday, Interior Ministry officially resigned, and officially joined the '17th of February Revolution'.

Another city falls, Adjabiya.

Gaddafi may have ordered his forces to sabotage the oil fields.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/166687.html

It sounds like all the momentum is with the rebels, now controlling the entire eastern half of the country (at least along the coast), and there are now some reports of the rebels taking over a few cities in the west as well.  Is this going to end with a massive showdown in Tripoli?

Maybe. Some indications suggest that Gaddafi has successfully destroyed the rebellion in Tripoli itself (mostly by killing hundreds and scaring everyone else off the streets). The real question is whether the other western cities will fall into the rebels' control, and, if not, if the Cyrenaicans will push further west and eventually topple Gaddafi. (Or if some outside power decides intervening is a good idea, or someone assassinates Gaddafi, or something else equivalently random.)

A Libyan Su-22 has crashed after the two-man crew disobeyed orders to attack Benghazi; both crew are OK.

(BBC)

I would think the real question could be Tripoli only, and yeah, if people from the army don't join protesters there, rebels from the east and soldiers who joined them could organize a 'liberation march' toward Tripoli. Assassination wouldn't help much for the fall of the regime imo, Selif is always here and promised 'rivers of blood'. Outside power intervention would only happen if this really last long.

Such a march could as well result in a Tribes fight that could have consequences on the long term, or hopefully in a better unification of the country for the future.

Best way would be some guys in the army take control of what remains of power to Gaddafi, and optimally they catch everybody that has to be caught there before they flee in the desert.

()

2.5 of the above down, 1 (or more) to go ...

We have a map, nice!

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg615/scaled.php?tn=0&server=615&filename=un88.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

Well, if that's anything to go by, Gaddafi is a deader duck than I thought.

In an example of epic fail, the European Union has announced that they've stopped their arms exports to Libya.

(No word yet whether any European heads of governments will be prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder though. :P )

There are also claims that the protesters control Sirte, which would be quite an achievement as this is Qadhafy's birthplace.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112235434767487.html

Also, Sarkozy (!) calls for sanctions against Libya:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f1fc5fbe-3f36-11e0-8e48-00144feabdc0.html

The man is delusional and so are his progeny.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc99db2e-3f74-11e0-a1ba-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1EoDesHK1

"Colonel Muammer Gaddafi expects to take on an advisory role in any new regime in Libya according to his son, al-Saadi Gaddafi."

Quadaffi is pretty cool, you have to admit.  Heck they all were.

()

I sincerely hope this momentum carries on to the rest of the world.

I'd like to remind everyone that this military force kicked Gadaffi's ass:

()

This has become grimly funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUe_YoDAo-8

Yeah, this isn't good:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162820431712238.html

Wow. Libya has dissolved into chaos. This is no Egypt, that's for sure - it really shows the downside of breakdown of law & order.

Reminded me of this picture...

()

Eastern anti-Gaddafi forces are preparing to march on Tripoli.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134017782/Libya-Latest?ps=cprs

It's interesting what's going on in Eastern Libya, though; the people are apparently trying to create law and order on their own.

Qaddafi is on state television again. He should post straight to goldmine.  He is blaming Bin Laden for giving the kids drugs and is comparing himself to Queen Elizabeth II.

He's comparing himself to the Queen...

This speech is epic.

He sounds drunk or high in any language.

Gaddafi has not yet assumed room temperature yet I take it. It seems like he is going down the Saddam Hussein track.

Isn't all the oil in east Libya, now out of Gaddafi's control?  How long can he last with no dough coming in?

Yeah, a bunch of bores (even our president, who quite frankly is a handsome, lanky dude), and Quadaffi, a cool guy for sure.  Medevedeve and Sarkozy look particularly worthless.

Ben Ali: made three speeches to TV before fleeing.

Mubarak: made three speeches to TV before fleeing.

Gaddafi: has made three bizarre and incoherent speeches.

See a pattern?

     Not sure the pattern will hold up. It seems quite obvious that this dictator doesn't have his ducks in a row, so it's really anyone's guess what will happen.

Gaddafi is sounding like Glenn Beck these days.  I'm surprised he didn't come out with a chalkboard and pictures of Karl Marx.

Tweet (hahaha) from Reuters:

It would be more interesting if they each made 6.

More like Bin Laden, since Gaddafi is blaming everything on al-Qaeda. Including Western journalists who, according to Gaddafi, are also working for al-Qaeda. Or something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/feb/24/dont-libyan-protesters-care-about-r-and-b-stars

I don't care. Why do you think I download songs?

A video of a few youths drugged by bin laden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgP0Gro52c8&feature=player_embedded

Via B3TA:

()()
()()()()()()()()()

Do we really want to get rid of King Muhammad though?

I mean compared with most of these other guys he's f**king Mikhail Gorbachev.

Look what happened to Gorbachev.

On the Twitter account of a certain politician:


No points for correctly stating whose account this is.

Hugo! Hugo!

I'm watching Rachel Maddow at The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, talking about Libyan Crisis, in Record News (that owns Brazilian rights).

The former justice minister (who resigned a few days ago) says:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011224143054988104.html

That wasn't my point though. Would it be desirable?

Democratic Undergrond tried to spin Chavez tweet as support for Ghadaffi. Lol.

Unconfirmed media reports say Ghaddafi's son, Saif al-Arab, has joined the protesters.  I emphasize "unconfirmed" because no reliable news sources have picked up on the story, yet, that I can find.

Gaddafi seems to have realized to a degree that fear isn't working - now he's trying bribery.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0225/Libya-s-Qaddafi-offers-400-per-family-as-rebels-close-in-on-Tripoli

Confirmation that Gaddafi is indeed still in Tripoli:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011225165641323716.html

Those green profile pictures make me believe we are talking about a collectible card game... the actual words not withstanding. :P

You see, I'm making this real killer Ahmadinejad deck. I'm using a few "Motorcycle Cop" cards in it as well as a couple of "Death to America" cards. With those, do you think I need to add any "Curfew" cards? My friend had a Mubarak deck, and he played way too many "Curfew" cards. It was a terrible deck. I would rather leave room for something else, if I can. I really don't think they would do much good. I have Khamenei. Should I put him in the deck, instead?

That's the point; the images are from B3ta.

Oh, I never heard of it.

Still, any suggestions for a deck? lol

Suggestions for a deck: the Bashir Assad deck is pretty solid (he has an elemental resistance to sanctions and an immunity to condemnation), though the secession card will automatically drain a third of his health, so be careful.

Well Obama is imposing sanctions: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/25/Obama-imposes-sanctions-against-Libya/UPI-61861298667236/

Useless gesture of the month. It's not like Gaddafi's going to give a damn.

This whole episode puts into stark relief some of the absurdities of international relations and diplomatic-speak.

I understand why Qaddafi's kid would go on TV and do a Baghdad Bob in pretending that this is just some sort of minor disturbance in a few cities, and the government still has control of most of the country, but from Western leaders like Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, etc., you're almost getting a milder version of that.  Where their public statements still refer to Qaddafi's regime as the government of Libya, and they urge the regime not to use force against protesters and so forth.

Uh, we're way past this being about a "protest movement".  It's a war.  A war in which the rebels have managed to take over most of the country outside of Tripoli.  Qaddafi is no longer the leader of Libya in any meaningful sense, and he probably never will be again.  And one side of the war is going to win and the other side is going to lose, and Obama, Cameron et al. would presumably like the rebels to win, and they'd like it to happen by most of Qaddafi's forces switching sides / giving up without a fight.

But of course, they can't say any of that, because acknowledging the opposition as a potential government of Libya this soon (even while the country's entire diplomatic corps seems to have sided with them!) and saying that Qaddafi's regime is done as the government of Libya might offend authoritarian allies and violates the norms of the Westphalian system and Western colonialism and blah blah blah.  Same kind of nonsense that leads to people refusing to say out loud that Taiwan is an independent country, even while treating it like one.

It sounds as if Gaddafi is preparing for the final battle: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/26/gadhafis-civilian-supporters-being-armed/

Do we know if Sabha's status has changed? I recall that being the city where Gaddafi's mercenaries were landing.

I was waiting for this to appear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2BdL3g1kxI

You weren´t the only one...

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110226/local/gaddafis-voluptuous-ukrainian-nurse-heading-home

Wow, even that Ukrainian nurse is fleeing!

Well, the international community seems to have suddenly woken up to the fact that Gaddafi is on his way out.  The UN Security Council voted to freeze Gaddafi's assets and refer him to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12589434

and Obama called on Gaddafi to step down.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces are starting to withdraw from certain neighborhoods within Tripoli, to consolidate their forces.  And a new interim government has been set up for post-Gaddafi Libya, with former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil taking the lead for now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Interim_Government

Tunisians and Egyptians are working to oust Gaddafi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022603808.html

()

Gaddafi is out, obviously. Kind of tragicomical how the international community only joins the bandwagon once it is 100% clear that the Libyan people has done the job on their own.

Well, if he pulls through, we'd still need his oil, wouldn't we?

Precisely.  Nor is their any reason for us to prefer the replacement to Quadaffi.

He's not in control of the oilfields any more, so we can throw him under a bus.

He still controls the oil fields in the west. The seeds are set for a long term civil war unless there are more defections and Gaddafi's side collapses. Which, hopefully is not too far away. However, if anyone is able to control the country after this is anyone's guess. Libya is really in trouble.

He controls the fields but has no way to sell the oil (as all of the pipelines are shut down, and he has no way to get the oil to ports; the oil ports are all controlled by the opposition). This is not going to be a long civil war. Gaddafi has no supporters, just mercenaries and his family, and the mercenaries will not stick around once he can't pay them (which will happen very soon if it isn't happening already). Even if he does, there's no way he can get supplies in and out of Tripoli, and he's continuing to lose control of more and more places closer and closer to the city. This is all but over.

I'm still kind of unclear on how the paying of mercenaries works.  Do they just get a big fat check at the end of their service (assuming their side wins)?  Do they have a usable escape route in case things look bad, and they realize that they're going to lose?

Probably depends on the mercenaries, but I would guess most demand pay by the day or the week or something. Otherwise it would be way too risky to get involved in something like this where you stand a good chance of dying and an even better chance of never getting paid.

I don't think the mercenaries would surrender though even if they weren't paid, in one city about 30 were captured and then burned alive. Of course if not paid they'd be fighting just to flee the country.

US, Allies weigh no-fly zone (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html)

By continued trade & supply to the liberated areas, while keeping Tripoli under blockade for all but humanitarian supplies, other countries can starve Qaddafi. Right now the opposition does not seem strong enough to take Tripoli, the Libyan military was kept too weak by Qaddafi.

I predict that if there's still a stalemate in three weeks, the Western powers will start arming the rebels, so that they can finish Qaddafi off.

Agreed. If Qaddafi starts a counter-offensive, Western powers could move sooner with arms or even air strikes. Usually I'm against foreign intervention, but this is one case where limited action could make sense.

Yeah, my point. He might technically control a couple of oilfields, but sanctions aside, he has no way of selling it to other countries. Most of the oilfields are either controlled by the rebels, or couldn't be useful on the international markets.

Also, the foreign workers which the Libyan oil industry depends on have almost all fled, so the oil fields can't produce very much.

My favourite scenario so far is the one that has Egypt launch an invasion. This would a) kill of Gaddafi b) avoid the revolt being perceived as a Western affair c)cement the position of the temporary government in Egypt and prevent further riots there (which admittedly could backfire if it just leads to the army taking over command) and d) would probably make other regional leaders reconsider too extreme measures against future protests.

Slightly like the way it were the Vietnamese who got rid of Pol Pot.

New BBC headline: Libya protests: Gaddafi says 'all my people love me'

     The protestors are not from real Libya, you see.

Reminds me of former Stasi head Erich Mielke who publicly declared his love for all the people in East Germany during a speech in November 1989.

No - they are and they love him, it's just that they've been drugged by bin Laden so they don't realize it.

Has he announce an embargo on Nescafé yet?

The counter-attack has started. It's civil war.

US readies military options (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/africa/01military.html?_r=1)

French planes with humanitarian supplies moving in (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/europe/01france.html?hp)

Once again this would be one of the rare cases where limited intervention might be justifiable and actually not backfire on the West if it were to intervene. Do not airstrike on urban areas, however keep Qadhafi's tanks from moving across the desert, keep his planes grounded.

But is a western-backed No Fly Zone really useful for the rebel movement? It would prevent the rebels from using their captured air force to fly troops from Benghazi to the liberated parts of the west, and if the west makes an exemption for rebel aircraft then it does hurt the legitimacy of the rebels, and by extension the new Libyan government when it is formed. So ideally any No Fly Zone should be enforced by an Arab country with a strong air force, most likely Egypt.

Impose a no-fly zone around the Tripoli region only, and then sell the rebels some tanks at a deep discount (possibly via a third party like Egypt, if it helps with appearances).  That might be enough to end this.

One of the opposition leaders said that they would be OK with airstrikes if they continue to be unable to take Tripoli but not any land invasion. And I might have to give kudos to Australia since Rudd (now the Foreign Affairs minister) and the Defense minister are seriously talking about a no-fly zone enforcement.

As noted above, the first sign that Gaddafi was in a much stronger position than most people seemed to think was the fact that the rebels didn't even attempt to mount an assault on Tripoli.  The counter-attacks are now even more proof.

Barring real Western involvement (such as arming the rebels or using military force), this armed conflict is going to continue for a while, and it becomes uncertain in my mind who will prevail.

Except that none of the counterattacks have actually successfully retaken a city for Qaddafi?  That seems a pretty big hole in any argument revolving around the counterattacks.  If anything, Qaddafi's attack on Zawiah is proof of his impotence.

There are a couple of factors to consider. One, the early stages of a civil war are the most critical, so if this is what is indeed brewing, then the window of opportunity to rapidly influence a decisive result is closing quickly. Two, if the two sides are relatively evenly balanced in a stalemate, it would take more than a "no-fly zone" and taking out anti-aircraft batteries to break the stalemate. Sustained aerial strikes on entrenched positions with civilian collateral casualties ala Afghanistan 2001 would likely be necessary. Three, Turkey, Russia, France and Germany would not likely be on board. This would be a "coalition of the willing." The final consideration is the impact that the Libyan situation has on other protests in other countries. Just as Tunisia and Egypt influenced others, Libya may as well. If the country falls into a protracted civil war and humanitarian crisis, particularly if Qaddafi is able to re-take cities, this may have a chilling effect on protests elsewhere, particularly raising awareness of potential violent dynamics and the risks inherent in attempting a revolution. Such a chilling effect, at this point, would not be entirely unwelcome.

Your point is not unreasonable, but I suspect it will not be the only counterattack.  Meanwhile, the rebels have yet to even launch an attack on Tripoli.  In order for us to even start to think about an endgame to this, that must occur since Gaddafi's hold on Tripoli is quite strong.

I guess that so long as they manage to keep Gaddafi to Tripoli proper and a few surrounding areas, they can starve him out, but that will take time, and I'm sure they will have to repel a number of counterattacks, as well as keeping unity amongst themselves.

Which is why we'll probably see Western involvement soon enough.  So much for no blood for oil, though hopefully this will occur at a distance.

No disagreements, though France and Germany may help indirectly.  For us wee people, we just wait and see, for now.  :)

I wonder if they'd be more like to consider if it wasn't for the great Iraq mistake.

The military situation is hard to gauge, but looking at the map, one can say the pro-Qadhafi forces are trapped in Tripoli, but one could also say the anti-Qadhafi forces are split between the eastern portion and a couple of cities in the west, Al-Zawiya and Misrata. Of these, Al-Zawiya appears to be under siege and would need to be resupplied by sea. The danger for the opposition is that the two western cities are isolated and cut off. This seems unlikely for Misrata because of its size.

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506004576173831133467692.html#project%3DMIDEASTTIMELINE1102%26articleTabs%3Darticle)

"There are, in essence, two Libyan rebellions. A rebel army has risen up in the east, led by a provisional government in Benghazi. Independent uprisings have occurred in western towns—including Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, which lies 130 miles east of Tripoli, and Al-Zawiya, 30 miles to the capital's west.

In Zawiya, rebels controlled the center of the city Tuesday, while pro-government forces held the outskirts. Witnesses said pro-government forces have moved their checkpoints closer to central Al-Zawiya, increasing their control over several neighborhoods."

Strangely it reminds me of the Spanish civil war, especially with the use of mercenaries from other parts of Africa.

Huge explosions in Tripoli...wait, it was just a gas truck rolling over in a rather extreme traffic accident.

Of course, cause aside, it's still not the most pleasant thing to have to clean up.

Looks like Gaddafi is regaining momentum.  Zawiya's position in particular looks rather tenuous.  Of course, the pro-Gaddafi side probably can't take it without a huge amount of bloodshed, which probably makes Western intervention more likely.

Also, looks like there's about to be a big showdown near Ajdabiya:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506004576173831133467692.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12618367

And the west is watching all this without doing anything...

Who are we to be world police and impose our cultural values on others? You don't want to be a colonialist imperialist, do you?

I suppose this strawman wasn't directed to me since I've never said nothing that could lead you to think I'm a dictator-loving "relativist". It would be nice if you didn't involve the entire forum in your feuds against a couple of users, though.

Actually, what I said had nothing to with the forum or anyone on it. It was more a general comment on how the world (especially the left of the world) reacts whenever the West actually intervenes anywhere.

And what should "the West" be doing exactly, gentlemen?

Exactly what we didn't do during the Rwandan civil war.

Gaddafi may have made some headway in regaining a bit of control in his recent attacks. Also, eastern rebel leaders are considering asking for foreign military support in the form of airstrikes against Gaddafi military assets.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Witnesses-Pro-Gadhafi-Forces-Attack-2-Eastern-Towns-117227003.html
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1623125.php/Gaddafi-attempts-to-retake-several-Libyan-cities-1st-Lead

He hasn't taken Brega. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12626496)

I'm pretty pacifistic, but this seems like a case where quick, precise intervention could save a lot of lives, certainly more than it would cost.

At the very least, it sounds like there might be some sort of British operation to get rid of Gaddafi's supplies of chemical weapons, which make sense to get rid of.

I wonder if one would be allowed to venture the opinion that it would more more advisable to intervene on the side of Gaddafi or if that would be considered a 'trolling' opinion - or perhaps hateful or something of that nature.

If I were to venture such an observation, it would be based on the many years of reliable oil-delivery the gentleman has to his credit, and the fact that however wonderful the bearded 'democracy activists' or rebel-freedom-fighters may be, they are a complete unknown regarding the oils.

Well, ignoring any ethical considerations one might make in regards to this position, I would say that Gaddafi's reliability on the oil front at this point would be highly questionable. Even if the rebellion at large was quashed I imagine you would still have a number of guerrilla groups remaining for quite some time who would be more than happy to disrupt Gaddafi's oil operations at every turn, especially considering that the pro-Gaddafi intervention by the West would be for the sake of getting that oil in this scenario.

Really, any government that ends up running Libya is going to want to sell that oil - the money from that is going to be essential to running anything, I imagine.

It's really rather difficult to come up with an adequate response to this.

Don't try to understand it, Xahar, just accept that them sandpeople don't really count when that Human Rights thing is discussed.

They have no choice but to keep delivering the oils, even if they don't want to. What else are they going to do with it, drink it?

My point is that you guys are taking a rather simplistic view of things, but I don't expect you to understand.

Well, that's a reasonable point, however in allegiance with new bearded governments which seem definitely to be coming in Bahrain, Oman, and no doubt down the road in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Iraq, coupled with the already-extant bearded regime in Iran, it is easy to imagine a kind of concerted effort to strangulate the infidels.  After all, selling 80% of the oil at twice the price does equal more revenue, and you get the added enjoyment of seeing america collapse again.

Realpolitik is just as simplistic and naive as any other international perspective, especially from those who proclaim wisdom beyond their capacity to know.

Yes, we're ignorant naive idiots who aren't as naturally brilliant as you are. Sorry :(

LOL, it's fascinating to see how short-sighted egoism is considered as a sort of wisdom in foreign politics. Of course you didn't invent it, it's a political doctrine as old as the humanity. And despite centuries of human history showed how silly it was, I fear it will never die.

The issue isn't "realpolitik." The reason why I am concerned about protests is that when they turn out the way the situation in Libya has turned out, it can end up hurting more people than helping. Isn't the fact that the country has fallen into civil war, some 140,000 people have been displaced from their homes, and some 6,000 people have been killed something to consider? Or are these facts on the ground irrelevant because we were taught in school that any armed uprising purporting to speak in the name of liberal democracy is automatically worthwile?

What about helping removing the dictators who are causing this bloodshed ? The only reasons why there are so much deaths is because the west is cowardly waiting to see who prevails.

Liberty is the most important thing.

Is it? Where was the liberty on 9/12 when the Patriot Act was being proposed? In theory, "give me liberty or give me death" is what Westerners tend to admire, but in reality, even most Westerners will take government provided security over physical danger or death. It's a mistake to project our own values and dreams onto other people's lived reality. The lived reality in Libya right now isn't very good.

@ Antonio: the West should definitely consider intervention, as I've mentioned many times.

So you favor the Patriot Act?

I don't. I would rather die than live in a dictatorship.

Oh, Beet.  I could never go through life as pessimistic as you are.  I don't know how you survive.  *hughughug*


DRAMAZ!

I highly doubt it's true, but the Patriot Act sucks indeed.

It's common sense. It doesn't entail suicide. It entails dying to get things back to the side of liberty. Just because you like control, doesn't mean everyone does.

What would Beet have said about Romania in December of 1989?

I don't want to sound like a moderate hero, but I'd be very cautious with intervention talk. Remember, unlike Egypt or Tunisia, those are not massive protests: this is a civil war already.

Should international community intervene with force or not? I really don't know :(

All I know that there's always a risk such a mission can turn into another creppy "nation-building" which, I dare to say, is going to be much worse both for Libya and the region, that Gaddafi now.

We should probably avoid any nation building - the opposition seems to have a handle on things for the most part in regards to keeping things running. Anything we do should only be aimed at getting Gaddafi out to keep the conflict from becoming prolonged.

Quite honestly, the people of Libya having the ability to govern themselves is far more important than "Regional stability."

EDIT:  And, yes, full-out civil war is a step up from living under the rule of Muammar al-Qaddafi.

Great, I agree with Mikado... :P

The trouble with 'hard headed' (or do you prefer 'hard boiled'?) realism is that it is seldom realistic.

Well, it appears the bastard is using child soldiers. Wish I could say I was surprised.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gaddafis-child-fighters-lay-in-morgue-as-rebels-thirst-for-rough-justice/story-e6frg6so-1226015771325

But we never will. That just seems to be the way the U.S. government works.

If the West (i.e. US and some other second-rate countries) is not interested in getting involved, then the odds are going to be in favor of Gaddafi surviving and enacting some pretty interesting revenge on the rebels.  I said 50-50 last week, but to me it looks better than 50-50 as of now.  What happens after that is anyone's guess as the old guy has always been quite unpredictable - maybe he'll go back to hijacking planes and bombing sports events.

If we want to get rid of Gaddafi, we should be using aircraft to take down Libyan planes and arming the rebels to attack Gaddafi areas and Tripoli.  But we're rapidly losing time on that front if that's the goal.  Any type of half-assed/quasi-humanitarian effort will fail and end up in innocent lives being lost for no purpose.

As for Obama's ME policy in general, I'm just trying to figure out whether it's incompetent or sinister.  Seriously.

Well, according to Wikipedia, two U.S. warships are on their way to Libya through the Suez Canal. This being Wikipedia, however, I'd prefer a more reliable source.

What would you prefer he do? Seriously.

The west gains nothing from intervening. If we can get some Arab states to do our dirty job then we should go for it. Otherwise the west needs to stay out.

There is no chance that any Libyan government will legalize alcohol.

except that no Middle Eastern or African Nation has frozen Gaddafi's assets. (And the chairman of the African Union is freaking Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, a nation that has blacked out all coverage of the Libyan uprising)

the Arab government's are in an interesting spot of doing nothing to work for greater freedoms, and then using their media outlets to blame other people for their problems.

In other words, wait on the Arab league, and watch Muammar do a Saddam 1991 on the protesters as the Arab League does nothing. Followed by the people thinking the US is bad. And do something, and watch people think the US is bad.

So it's a matter of choosing who you want to be madder at you. And here, it'd probably be a lot of refugees who will have lost everything and who would have a grudge against the US government.

In the scheme of things, either Gaddafi dies or the protesters die. There's no exile or no compromise.

Oh yeah, they're gonna hold prayers outdoors in the Green Square to make it easier to murder any protesters. And Misurata got bombed.

Damn, deciding on a No-Fly Zone is hard, let's give Gaddafi a few more weeks to attack his opposition from the air.

BBC told me US warships were headed there. UK is was also getting something ready.

Yes, that's right: Kearsage and Ponce. Enterprise is in the Red Sea at the moment, seeing how things go.

Government forces are within 1 mile of the central square in Zawiya, and the top rebel commander in the town has been killed. Although I'm not sure what would be worse: the government reprisals against rebels after they re-take the town, or the humanitarian crisis that would have played out in a long drawn-out siege with food supplies not being allowed in. Probably the latter.

Rebels are claiming they've taken the oil port of Ras Lanuf.

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72320420110304

Then again, so is the government.

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFLDE72321220110304

By the way, is actually any oil being exported right now? Either by Gaddafi or the opposition?Because Qadaffi especially will soon have serious problems paying his mercenaries if he can't export oil (that's if he's not press ganging them).

They are at about half-capacity, or 700,000-750,000 barrels per day. This is in no small part due to foreign workers having been evacuated. Oil is still being paid for, but Gaddafi may not be able to actually collect the payments due to most of his assets being frozen.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72018W20110304

Libya has shut off their internet again.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/04/libya/

I was somewhat surprised this hadn't happened sooner.  That it didn't was likely due in part to that IIRC the rebels in Zawiya had indicated that they were opposed to foreign intervention.  If the pro-Gaddafi side is moving in, they've either decided they aren't going to retake the east anytime soon and/or Zawiya is no longer useful in dissuading foreign help to the rebels.

Both Qaddafi and the rebels have taken/lost a city today.  In the words of Sam Spade, "Interesting..."

Interesting...

Well, fighting is still occurring over Zawiya. It's not Gaddafi's win yet, but it's kind of looking like it might end up that way unless something major changes.

Even if Gaddafi "wins", does he really have enough loyal troops to invade and occupy the east?  Might this turn into a pre-9/11 Afghanistan situation, with the country divided and in a quasi-equilibrium ongoing state of civil war?

()

green = held by pro-Gaddafi forces
red = held by anti-Gaddafi forces
yellow = ongoing fighting / unclear situation

The forum can't display SVGs.  Here you go:

()

It shows up just fine in my browser.

Hmm... I've always been able to see them on Wikipedia, but never when I try to post them here.

For those who also couldn't see it, there it is. :)

Morden's showed up fine for me too.

Why do we owe the protestors anything? We shouldn't give Gaddafi any support but I don't see why military intervention is necessary. Then everyone is going to say the US is going in for the oil. It looks bad, and we don't gain anything. It's time to stop playing policeman.

He is drawing a parallel to how the US should have saved the Iraqi Shi'ites in 1991 from Saddam Hussein's wrath.

This is somewhat different anyway.

Until Qaddafi loses control of Sabha we wont find anything interesting.

You're so hip!

Saturday Morning in Az Zawiyah: Gaddafi tanks roll in, at least 6 are taken out. The elite Libyan troops are executing people in the streets. Tanks are shelling the city. After a bit of fighting, the Gaddafi side retreats. And presumably by the time you read this, they might move back in.

As to the protester side being owed anything. All they're owed is a fair chance and a reduced chance of having war criminals violate all human norms in fighting them. The farthest you could go is a no-fly zone because of the realities of moving troops to the West over a long road.

Also, it would not shock me if the explosion in Benghazi that has claimed 27 was a Gaddafi-ordered event. But I can imagine that they have reasons to not admit that terrorist acts behind the lines occurred.

Oh yeah, the Libyan request to suspend the sanctions, contrasted with them killing people in the streets of Az Zawiyah and shooting at anything that moves there... yeah, they're not gonna get a suspension. And by this point, they're one big blow from circling the drain. Mercs are mercs, and the Libyan units can only fight for so long against a foe that's not going to roll over and die.

The problem with that uprising by the shiites in 1991 was that it followed a few months after a US military operation. That is why they could have expected US support.

We have our hands relatively clean in Libya. Let's keep it that way.

According to BBC:

1651: Fear and anger in rebel-held Benghazi after the massive arms depot blast, AFP reports. People the agency interviewed were unwilling to give their full names, fearing reprisals from Gaddafi forces. "There will be rivers of blood," said one man in jeans and a leather jacket. "It won't be like in Tunisia and Egypt. How long will the West hold back and do nothing? People are asking why the West is watching without doing anything."

Gaddafi's assault on Zawiya has failed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12655351). Hopefully the rebels were able to capture some ammunition. That makes three defeats for Gaddafi - Brega, Ras Lanuf, and now Zawiya.

Gaddafi's forces are either incompetent or have no heart in it, I suppose it is probably both.

Apparently the rebels have detained eight British SAS soldiers that were escorting a British diplomat who wanted to talk to the rebel leaders.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i1dZuBGJTH-ezSVti9O82DwqUxTg?docId=N0319741299378132768A

Arab troops are notoriously bad - though I doubt this will be Gaddafi's last assault on the towns mentioned.

Why hasn't someone put a bullet through the madman's head yet?  That seems to be indicated. This needs to end.

BBC is reporting heavy gunfire in Tripoli no word on whats actually going on though.

Libyan state TV now claims they have taken Zawiya and Misurata. If so it would be huge, but it's hard to believe. There's no reaction on Intrade yet. I think it's best to discount this unless there is independent confirmation.

They seem to "retake zawiya" everyday. So until their is some media taken into the town and shown its cleared i wouldn't buy it.

Yea, AJE just had on someone from Misrata who said that government forces are nowhere near there.

The Libyan state propaganda outlet has had about as much reliability as Baghdad Bob. Why even pay attention to them?

Yeah BBC says state tv even claims they have taken Tobruk so yeah BS.

It isn't unusual for state propaganda to make incredibly big lies in their dying days. Even Hitler believed his own lies about his troop numbers as the Russians closed in.

     Look at the 8:20 AM entry (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-7). It seems that government forces launched another counter-offensive, albeit without success. Ra's Lanuf has seen heavy renewed fighting.

Please finally kick out this bloody asshole.

France: Arab League/Amr Moussa back no-fly zone.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jrLGOL6UZpNNaNghtx7z8vr7U2uQ?docId=CNG.93280b7ec50a265e547c3fbb555a7bba.681

So the rather infamous Downfall clip is probably accurate?

If some countries attack Libya, Austria will not be among them:

A new Gallup poll shows 70% of Austrians are against a military intervention by our army.

http://www.oe24.at/welt/libyen/Oesterreich-kauft-Oel-von-Gaddafi/19530504

No doubt Khaddaffhi's greatest fear...

I wasn't even aware that it was an issue... I mean as a NATO non-member and all. :P

About a week ago, "Gaddafi to no longer be leader of Libya by Dec. 31st, 2011" was trading at about 90 on Intrade, and it's now down to 76.0......just below "Saleh to no longer be president of Yemen by Dec. 31st, 2011", which is at 77.0.

I would find it humorous, if Austria was the sole country to intervene.

Apparently Gaddafi offered rebels to negociate his leaving power, but the rebels turned him down.

If someone like Gaddafi tries to negociate, it means he is really in deep sh*t.

It's why I think it is only a rumor.

But we are members of the EU Battlegroup 107, which could be sent to Lybia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlegroup_107

Looks very unlikely though because no politician would authorize the deployment of Austrian soldiers to Lybia.

Austria hasn't been the sole country to intervene anywhere since 1914. :)

There does appear to be a lack of Arab support for Western intervention of any kind. We have to admit that if this was Darfur or Congo, no one would be talking about a no fly zone, it would not even be in the news. The West needs to tread carefully here.

Aren't the Arab League in favour?

That was the most significant expression of support but it's not certain whether they mean the West enforcing or they enforcing themselves with the African Union. It's also not clear how much support there is "on the street" for Western intervention. Of course Arab governments and Arab peoples are not always in agreement :P

That's still worth noting.

At this point, I think the only kind of outside support the opposition is likely to get is logistical, i.e., we supply them with ammo and better weapons.  Can you say, Stinger?

Didn't say you shouldn't post it. ;)

I found some footage of the negotiations between Gaddafi and the opposition

()

But seriously, this kinda sounds like someone is taking a Heinrich Himmler approach behind Gaddafi's back.

And I hear that the news from Sunday about massive victories came out to make Gaddafi happy because he was mentally on edge

()

ECD Iserlohn (nowadays Iserlohn Roosters) ice hockey jersey, advertising Muammar Gaddafi's "Green Book" (worn in a single game against Rosenheim on December 4, 1987).

Yes, definitely... the rebels are currently equipped with Strela-2/SA-7s, which aren't brilliant MANPADS systems even against 1970s vintage Su-22 "Fitters". I'm also pretty sure that I saw some T-55s there...

Did you know that Russia had about $4bn of arms deals they were about to make to Libya?

France recognizes Libya's rebel leadership in Benghazi as the official government of Libya, and will soon exchange ambassadors with them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/europe/11france.html

Portugal too, I heard.

I'm shocked with Mr. Sarkozy's hypocrisy. Now, he wants air attacks against some Gaddafi's targets. He wants to apologize after trying to prop up Ben Ali and his ministers visiting Egypt and Tunisia as friends of dictators. Another reason is that he wants to offer the Rafale-a failure fighter-to this new government in Benghazi.

I'm not shocked at any politican's hypocrisy.

It's good not to have to feel ashamed of my country's foreign policy, for once.

What the devil is wrong with them?  It looks like Gaddafi is going to pull it out. :)

I saw an impressive guy on BBC today, some ex-foreign minister of the UK, who said that he always thought Gaddafi would win, and doesn't think anyone will intervene in a major way.

Not that I share Opebo's opinion of Gadhafi, but it's ironic that they are recognizing the opposition government when it seems that Gaddafi has gained the upper hand.

They'll be eating their beret when he marches into Bengazhi!

Like I've said before, Gaddafi may "win", but I doubt he has enough loyal troops to invade and occupy the entirety of the east.  Gaddafi "winning" may mean a Somalia-like situation in much of the country, which would of course be great news for the "bearded ones" you're so fond of.

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Qaddafi, with an army to enforce his tyranny, has declared that he has a right (not only to tax) but "to bind us in all cases whatsoever," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.


Whether the freedom of the Libyan people was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet. All that Qaddafi has been doing for this month past, is rather a ravage than a conquest, which the spirit of Benghazi, a year ago, would have quickly repulsed, and which time and a little resolution will soon recover.

     Thomas Paine FTW.

The International Community is faced with a choice - comprehensive military intervention short of boots on the ground (including air-to-air, air-to-ground, sea-to-sea, and sea-to-ground attacks, supplying the opposition with arms) vs. possibly accepting either a permanent state of division or a Gadhafi victory and retribution, and a Gadhafi regime control over Libya. I can't see how the latter is superior to the former. As I said last week, every single day that passes by with more bureaucracy and diplomacy and empty words just makes this job harder.

I've just heard that the rebels have retaken Ras Lanuf. True ?

The New Republic has called Obama's Libya policy a disgrace. (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85098/obama-libya-policy-qaddafi-disgrace) Obviously they have a bad record with issues like this, but it's hard to disagree at this point.

I don't see what everyone expects Obama to do. Would military intervention in Libya really be worth it?

As Beet said, it's hard to imagine that the consequences of limited military intervention in Libya would be anywhere near as bad as the consequences of Qaddafi defeating the rebellion.

Are you serious? Once Gaddafi defeats the rebellion he'll knock things into shape and the oil will flow out.  If we intervene we'll have endless war, dead americans, destabiliation, bearded men, and blocked oil.  I just find it astounding that people are suddenly pro-intervention.

I feel like either wouldn't produce any positive results. Billions of dollars (that we don't have, Republicans like to keep mentioning we are in a deficit) wasted on intervention where we'd probably be just as stuck there as we were in Iraq and Afghanistan which would lead to consequences Opebo already wrote about.

Sarkozy seems to be the first who might actually intervene militarily, so let France deal with it then.

A lot of this is true.

Military intervention would be the absolute worst option. Until we learn how to fight wars correctly in other countries why in the world would we start a third?!

We have a messed up country ourselves right now. What's happening in Libya is a tragedy, but intervention would just make things worse. Maybe not for them (at least in the short term), but definitely for us.

The Arab League asks the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8378392/Libya-Arab-League-calls-for-United-Nations-no-fly-zone.html

Silly asses league - I'm sure Gaddafi's forces would win even without the air-power factor (it isn't as if they're very good at utilizing it from what we've seen).

I'm quite pessimistic here.

I sincerely doubt Europe or the US are going to take any, even most limited, action regarding Libya. You can't really for count France (regardless of Sarko's empty declarations) or Italy, since they believe Gaddafi is best choice for them, as they view him as the one, who can guarrante preventing Libyans from immigrating to Europe.

If Gaddafi can hold on, it's matter of year or two before he's again the best buddy.

     So they're saying the rebels have taken back Brega. Think it's true? It seems like the main source for this are the rebels (Al Jazeera is only claiming that "sources tell [them]"), who I wouldn't particularly trust, but at least they seem to have a better track record than the government, which is about as trustworthy as Hamilton.

It really doesn't seem at all likely.

It seems that their trustfulness of the rebels has been declining along with their fortunes. They lied about both Zawaya and Ras Lanuf and with independent confirmation about Brega available (see here: http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Benghazi-braces-as-morale-sinks-20110313), I'm not inclined to believe them.

     Russia's instated a travel ban on Qadaffi & his closest associates.

What could be more risky?

Well, now apparently Gaddafi's army would be close to march from Aljabiya on Benghazi and Tobruk in the same time.

Personally I'd be glad that the countries which knew a revolution, Tunisia, and especially Egypt of which the Air Force is a prestigious corps, propose to do something to militarily help the opposition against Gaddafi murdering its own people, symbolically it would be great. That being said, being taken in revolutionary transitions themselves maybe they, military officials at least, are less inclined to see their country engaged in a war, since Gaddafi could retaliate on them, but still symbolically would be the best.

Now, several ways, either we let Gaddafi's troops reaching Benghazi and Tobruk, hopping that they are defeated by rebels there (who knows, people won't let those big places of them being taken that easily) but it's taking the risk that Air Force does massive war crimes, or we begin to see what we can do to stop that (apparently literally) crazy guy and his maybe not less literally crazy sons which would be the only supports with a bunch of military officials and his tribe (about 100,000 people), well present in Tripoli, that he would still have in the country.

Personally, if Tunisia and especially Egypt does nothing, I'd support a military intervention there since the demand comes from what seems to be a respected representation of the rebel area and that it would stop some guys who already did a lot of war crimes and who maintained its people under a violent regime. If UN blocks it, I personally wouldn't care, the UN Security Council being totally unfair it has never been a reference to me, letting US and NATO out of this would be preferable too, symbolically they have too much screwed around in the world. Then why not a EU force, could be a good occasion to try to set something interesting in that realm in the Union, and if EU doesn't want, well France and UK seem of for this.

The fact France been the 1st to officially propose it kinda annoys me though, well, as I said I would support it, but each time I saw Sarkozy doing something I'd agree with, support, or find interesting, I feel like 'oh no, why is that him who took such or such initiative, he will find a way to screw it' (well, yes, he screwed most of what he touched...). But well, I'd still support it. It would have to be very carefully been done though, in order that it doesn't turn into a full scale war between France/whatever country goes into it and Libya, he has about 200 planes (which would be one of the reason it would be better that only a bunch of countries go into it, for example, if you engage either NATO or EU, you could have retaliations on Italy, as part of those even if not acting). Then I hope for once Sarkozy wouldn't screw around if he is in charge of something here, and if our officials establish serious plans saying it has more chances to be successful and screwed, I'd support.

Optimally, Tunisia and Egypt could try to do something and EU/NATO could promise them some support if they are in difficulty. Anyways, if a decision has to be taken, it could have to be in a very short term, Benghazi and Tobruk seem to clearly be the next step of army.

It has been reported that Egyptian special forces have been in Libya backing the rebels. Reportedly the elite Unit 777.

If there is a major combat operation involving Egypt, I want credit for being the first to predict/suggest/wish for such a development.

Oh, and I don't think Qaddafi's army would be any sort of match for the Egyptian one in an all-out conflict, especially not now. We're talking about an army even the Israeli's fear here, not about some disorganised mercenary militias.

Edit: obviously it's not just sheer idealism that would make Egypt get involved in an all-out civil war:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/7689/World/Region/Ahram-Online-on-the-Libyan-front-Egyptians-in-the-.aspx

Uh, the world thanks you...?

I gratefully accept it's gratitude. I just knew those generals couldn't have made this up without my much-needed assistance.

Actually I just meant it'd be cool if everybody woulk act as if I were some major Forum authority on the region.

Well that's sweet. Thankfully the conflicts of the world do not revolve around your selfish ass though, so thanks for trying at least. ;)

Egypt may have special forces helping the rebels, but I doubt they're going to be up for any kind of overt military action in Libya.  Too much to worry about internally in Egypt at the moment.

And of course, the UN Security Council isn't going to authorize any military action, because it would be blocked by China and/or Russia.  Turkey also seems to be keen on vetoing any NATO action.

So if there's to be any major military action (such as a no fly zone) in support of the rebels from the outside, it'll probably just be the US, UK, and France, with maybe some token help from a few others, and no authorization from the UN or from NATO.


Oh, and the rebels claim that Gaddafi is getting help from Algeria and Syria:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/rebels-fear-other-regimes-are-throwing-support-behind-gadhafis-forces/article1940647/

This is turning into a HUGE missed opportunity.

For what and whom exactly?

For him to be unseated. Everyone has been too slow, it gave Qaddafi the chance to re-group and re-take the initiative on the ground.

24 hour news is deceptive.

My source isn't news.

Qaddafi has certainly had momentum move in his favour, the reason why there is increasing desperation on the part of some to institute the no-fly zone - if Qaddafi is able to undermine the rebels sufficiently on the ground, the will of the rebels with go two ways, they'll either go underground or they'll harden and become guerrilla fighters.

That's not really what I was getting at. More your remark about speed.

Ah, gotcha.

But I still think that they have allowed Qaddafi breathing room.

Looks that way, doesn't it? But it may have been unavoidable. The trouble is that so much of the information coming out of Libya is so unreliable that we've probably never known what's gone on to the level that we'd normally demand.

That may sound mad, but it is four o clock in the morning and I can't sleep.

Control of Brega still seems to be contested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12742858

This is still a long long way from being over.  Gaddafi may have the momentum, but things are changing very very slowly:

()

Guys, I think maybe you've all been misunderstanding what Colonel Gaddafi is, from the get-go:

As the man has informed us himself in a recent interview:

He said he was not like the Tunisian or Egyptian leaders, who fell after anti-government protests. "I'm very different from them," he said. "People are on my side and give me strength." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya)

I think Gaddafi is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein - a real dictator: one who would die rather than give up power, and whose personal relationships and kinship ties are more important than simply being a figurhead for the army (like Mubarak).  Like Saddam, only the intervention by a foreign imperialist can have much of a chance of dislogding such a leader.

Good for Gaddafi - lets acknowledge that the man never even considered running away.  If the ship went down, he fully expected to go straight to the bottom.

You forgot the part about him hating the bearded men as much as Saddam did.

()

???

You know, Saddam kind of had a Mel Gibson thing going on towards the end there.  He should've done the beard look rather than the mustache look from the beginning.

I think this is the style he's referring to

()

I wonder if it would be an infractable offense to express approbation for Messrs Gaddafi and Hussein? 

If done like you just did it would seem unfathomable to receive any death points for it.

The way the West has dealt with this is disgusting and will cost us dear for generations to come. Once again we have signalled to those in the region that we indeed are the enemy and that the secular opposition is incapable of ending dictatorships in most of the Middle-East. I fully expect thousands to turn towards radical islamism across the region.

People who think there was any danger of the islamists taking over in Lybia don't know their stuff. If we're unlucky they will be the ones taking over when the Qaddafi regime falls in 10-20 years or when revolution comes to the Arab peninsula though, because we failed the Arab people this time round.  

Good lord, don't you think this smacks of 'White Man's Burden'?

When the Arab League invites a NATO intervention, the scenario's somewhat different.

You don't mean to suggest anyone but the USA is calling the shots in the UN, do you?

Guys, you're misunderstanding me - I mean the general idea that it is somehow the responsiblity of the paternalistic white man to 'help out' these swarthier peoples.  As if they cannot fight for their own freedom.  Sounds to me like the old 'White Man's Burden' idea - 'we have to help them'.

     Though the question is, does the Arab League have any more right to interfere with Lybia's internal affairs than the next folks? Just because they're not white, doesn't mean that their actions are anything other than being international policemen.

Well, there is something called 'International Community' which just about all countries seem to accept as an objectively good thing. I don't think preventing a semi-genocide is outside of what that International Community should be interested in.

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't such a bad thing, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

LOL

There are reports that two loyalist battalions in Sirt have defected and taken over the airport, and that an air force pilot has done a Kamikaze mission on Gaddafi's Tripoli compound. If true this is a major psychological boost for the rebels.

Well the rebels will need to pull off a Stalingrad at this point. I suspect taking Benghazi will be pretty bloody, since the rebels know that they'll be dead either way.

     There's also been a report that two fighter jets have defected to the rebels.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

Only two? That'll do it...

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

How's my suggestion dubious? Everybody knows Qadaffi will kill thousands after this. Heck, his own son has suggested so himself.

I doubt if you could get enough in and I'd know that the rebels could use them.

     Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the suggestion of a no-fly zone, which seems to me a rather inefficient way of helping the rebels if that's what our goal is. You responded to my post initially rather than the other way around.

Since a quick, "clean" victory by either side now appears impossible, TNR gives a quick blurb on what it suggests are the four "most likely scenarios" of the Libya uprising:

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85279/libya-afghanistan-iraq-somalia

Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia

Gaddafi's main advantage right now is that he has air power and can bomb the crap out of rebel positions with near impunity. Short of giving them fighter jets in sufficient number to fight off the bombers you won't really solve the problem this way because it would require us to give up some of our most expensive equipment as well as require us to give rebels a minimum of months of training that it doesn't look like they have in order to use that equipment effectively. Just giving them guns might help them, but without the power to control the air the rebels would still be at a significant disadvantage. Also, the disorganized nature of the rebel forces makes it hard to maintain control of weapons and there is a legitimate worry that weapons currently in rebel hands may end up on the black market after the war is over.

A no-fly zone doesn't require us to set one foot in Libya, it just takes away Gaddafi's big advantage. The rebels have shown that they are able to fight battles on the ground, so it would be a significant gain for them to not have to worry about fighting enemies in the air.

Alain Juppé, our new Foreign Affairs Minister (and finally someone interesting and efficient in some of our govts for years, glad this is the one that represents France abroad), made a declaration in the Assemblée Nationale this afternoon, he said that France, UK, and Lebanon were actively working on a UN resolution that they will present soon to the UN SC. Amongst other things this resolution will ask for the permission of an intervention there. And, important, he said that 'some Arab countries' gave their agreement for an active participation in this, which apparently also was a condition asked by Russia to determine their position.

Then so far, seems to me that here could be the possibilities:

Very optimistic option:

Something I haven't imagined and that would a good surprise.

Most possible optimistic solution:

The rebels succeed in defeating Gaddafi's ground army in Benghazi. They would fight over tough there, they wouldn't lose it easily it would only need heavy Air Force strike. And that could, yes, be a Stalingrad (hopefully in less nasty), because then, according to a reporter from itélé who's in the East, Gaddafi's army would have let very few men in each conquered city in the East, and if the army is defeated in Benghazi one part of it could surrender and join the rebels too. For example according to that same reporter, 2 days ago, 4 brigades of 1,000 men who were faithful to Gaddafi so far would have stopped to fight for him. And if something like this happen, the bunch of big military officials, who would be less crazy than the guy they still follow, could consider they are in a f**ed up situation and decide to use army against the guy and the sons, and optimally they catch them and they finish tried. Also, about the use of the Air Force, according to that same reporter of itélé, Gaddafi allegedly take in hostage the families of pilots if they disobey, then it would really take so big military officials who have some actual impacts on the hierarchy of the different Libyan forces to decide to stop all that craziness and perversity. That way, Libyans would have gained their freedom alone.

Other optimistic and quite positive option:

UN SC is ok for intervention before big fights happen in Benghazi, foreign military intervention, hopefully it happens well, and it's the beginning of the end for Gaddafi.

Less optimistic option:

Big fights in Benghazi, and odds that it turns more into a Grozni than a Stalingrad, and then other countries can't do other thing than, intervening. Yeah, Sarkozy almost promised an intervention to the Libyans who came in Paris, I can't imagine he tries nothing if it really turns bad in Benghazi, no matter what the UN could have said. In such an emergency situation I guess he could count on UK would followed France's position from the beginning and on the Arab countries that would have given their agreement to intervene according to Juppé.

Pessimistic option:

This is not an option.

Well, Juppé also said that he had 'good reasons' to hope for a good outcome in what could happen in UN. All is about time now.

I hope this, which I must say kinda does something to me, will be more associated with success and pride than fail and shame:

()

Today, people demonstrated with French signs in Benghazi.

     My issue is that I'm unclear on how a no-fly zone would work, exactly. When I hear about it I think of ships firing missiles at any military planes that might be launched from Libyan soil, but I surmise that it is something not so primitive in its implementation.

It would involve more than that; possibly F-22s flying around inside Libya; attacks on SAM sites that lock on to the enforcing aircraft, possibly even a few Tomahawks.

I feel ashamed of being a westerner. I really wish our political leaders were born in Libya, that's all they deserve.

At least France is taking a leadership role on this (though their long historic bad blood with CQ dating back to the Chad War is noted...France never liked CQ talking of Libya replacing France as the big dog in Africa).

Yeah, France is the only Western country that is acting even somewhat bravely. Everyone else, Obama included, is cowardly allowing the stage to be set for a brutal massacre of the opposition and many years of even harsher tyranny and bloodshed.

What about the UK?

Juppé is in UN to push the resolution.
France says it is 'convinced' that it would pass.
It would be voted in the end of the day in New-York.
Military operations could begin a matter of hours after the vote.

Apparently the resolution will be about, sanctions, a no-fly-zone, and it could even include some further military operations, like extended air strikes, which is part of what Libyans who came in Paris asked. Since there would be some Arab countries in it, Russia could accept, all would be about China, of which I have no clue about the position. If it's blocked, once again, I can't imagine France does nothing beyond it. Ah and, let's note the 180° in 12 hours of the USA, passing from an all mild position to Susan Rice who goes all tough, well, fine.


(What do you mean by CQ?). Well, yes, France already has an experience of intervention in Libya where it bombed an Air Force base in the south in 1986 to prevent Gaddafi invading the Chad, with which we had a defense agreement. And well, speaking about France in Africa and turning down an Air Force, France has a kind of 'experience' with the 'Côte d'Ivoire experience', in 2004 during the conflict between the power and the rebels, some planes of the Ivorian army bombs a French military camp, 9 soldiers dead, in like the 48 hours that followed Chirac gave the order to destroy the whole Ivorian Air Force, though we had bases in the country, which isn't the case in Libya. Alone we have 1 aircraft carrier (well, while not so old, that is when it isn't 'out for technical problems'), and well, according to a news report I saw once, we would have all kinds of necessary military equipment to organize a no-fly zone. But if Egypt participates it could become a good logistic base. Yesterday Italy said it didn't want of it, not sure they have done a 180° like the USA in the meantime, NATO seems more hot today than the days before though. Let's see.


Well, it might be your Italian part speaking more than your French part here, because, to be fair, France had quite the perfect timing here. It began to seriously move on the 10th, when Gaddafi was seriously conquering back, before everybody was hopping the opposition would march on Tripoli alone, avoiding interference, which states always try to avoid for understandable reasons, it immediately spoke of air strikes, and it did it in response to an official demand of the Transition Council in Paris, was harder to do better actually. Now time could be short, yeah, it took time to move other countries, but hey, let's hope something happens soon, for once that France has interesting positions. Oh, and, about why France could be forth here, it could be thanks to Bernard Henry Lévy, not sure yet, but that could be him that has put the Transition Council in link with Paris, thus why they would have come here, and well he was in the presidential office with them and the President (speaking about that, he so smartly and proudly very loudly said to TV cameras what were the strategic positions the rebels wanted to see destroyed, let's hope it doesn't have negative impacts).

Wow, I'm supporting something promoted by Sarkozy, Cameron...and Bernard Henry Lévy!! Oh wow, it's exotic.

That being said, that Bernard is really cute sometimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb_z-qa7MsA

Go Bernard!

I'm speaking collectively. France (for once) played the good role, but the only thing that matters is that, once again, the West is engaging in endless disucssions instead of taking a clear action and stop the bloodshed.

If anybody thinks France is acting like this out of commitment to human rights/democracy and any other big nice concepts, they're stupid.

Disagree, we're speaking of the emotional Sarkozy who also like to appear like a Zorro here, and it's not the 1st time the guy would take an emotional decision, in case the emotional factor would have effectively been important, and well, aside from a military fail, he has nothing to lose in doing that. Now, if you mean that the Transition Council would have promised things to France in the Presidential office, nobody has to be over-smart to imagine something like this possible, and well, if effectively so, ultimately there would be nothing morally shocking in that, and anyhow the point would remain that at the end of the day someone did something.

That being said, I also hope we will have good military officials to plan things here, because a minister of Gaddafi just said that in case of attack, they would attack all the civilian planes and boats they could, it would seems to already quickly go nervous then, because moreover I just hear that Gaddafi would have just stated that he now plans to attack Benghazi tonight. Which has just been answered by the fact that a foreign military intervention would begin right after the resolution is voted (which isn't guaranteed yet). Last noises say that the vote would take place at 10pm GMT.

Isn't it so damn obvious that Sarkozy is only acting like this to boost his international standing after his utter incompetence on Tunisia/Egypt and an attempt to place himself ahead of the US on the issue?

Really, if anybody believes that France is acting out of concern for democracy or human rights they're either hopelessly idealist fools or downright stupid.

Here I agree, that'd indeed be part of the factors. Now, I'm not sure some people dared pretending 'Democracy/Human Rights' would be the main point in that, it's a bonus.

While the West's eagerness to stand by and watch in Bahrain is still a very distressing thing, taking actual measures against Qaddafi, the murderous maniac, would make up at least partially for 2 weeks or more of incompetent and disgracefull slowness as far as Lybia was concerned.

Of course, that wasn't the West's fault alone, as the rebels did give in to some serious hybris in thinking they'd get rid of Qaddafi without any sort of International involvement.

I've been using it as an abbreviation for "Colonel Qaddafi."  Mainly because the other thread I'm following on the subject, on Something Awful, moves so fast that everyone has started calling him that to get their posts in and to avoid the name spelling disputes.

Oh ok, thanks.

In Benghazi, a radio has called for rebels to reach their defensive positions.
In New-York, apparently nobody would put a veto.

Ten minutes to go...

3 strong blasts and some anti-aircraft shooting would have been heard in Benghazi.

Begins:

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

France24 has it in French for French.

I think it's passed.

It did!

Now the job begins.

It's passed: 10 for, 0 against, 5 abstentions.

Let's hope this is a short war.

Great news.

As of a week ago, I would not have expected that China and Russia would let such a resolution get through, but momentum for the no fly zone built up quickly over the last few days.

Gaddafi to be ousted as leader of Libya by Dec. 31st has shot up to 75.0 on Intrade.

Big joy in Benghazi. :)

China, Russia, and Germany abstained.

Qatar and UAE (which on the other hand sent 500 policemen to Bahrain) will participate to the operations, but other Arab countries could too.

Is that the Benghazi crowd chanting 'One, Two, Three, Something Sarkozy"?

Oh, it would take the Algerian slogan back, well the Algerian one is '1! 2! 3! Viva l'Algérie!', lovely if so, seems there is the '1 2 3' part yes, it could be 'Viva Sarkozy' then, dunno.

Great news.

France24 announces that Italy offers its bases for operations.

Maybe the UMP should consider annexing Cyrenaica. It could help their dim electoral chances.

Also, Westerwelle/Germany's actions have been disgraceful, almost as bad as Sarkozy's in the Egyptian and Tunisian days.

^^^^^^^^

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html

Fine. On a French forum about geopolitics and military with guys who know more than me about military and especially French military, technically we could begin something from our own bases, even some things could be done directly from UK, beyond planes it could also pass by cruise missiles.

Oh and India and Brazil are the 2 others that abstained. It was supposed to be cool countries!

Well, Brazil's foreign policy pretty much sucks. Lula's main fault there is cozying up too much with authoritarian regimes for strategic reasons.

Well, France24 announces that finally EU is ready to apply this resolution, in the limits of its competences, Germany wouldn't have tried to block it in the EU then.

Also weird statements of the Gaddafi's representative, who said they were ready to 'answer positively to this resolution'...

Great news, though I worry it might be too little too late.

Oh, according to someone else they were precisely saying: '1! 2! 3! Merci Sarkozy!'. ;D

This.

Canada will send 6 planes for the no-fly zone.

Lugar says the US shouldn't participate in a no-fly zone unless Congress passes a declaration of war:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

I might change my opinion of the guy to HP.

So, a week ago, Obama gets bitched at due to whining about there not being enough action taken in Libya, and now he gets warning and pre-emptive criticism that we need to follow exact procedure and go all in before we do anything.

Well, I'd think, and hope, that France and UK, won't wait for the US Congress to eventually find this resolution cool, France alone would apparently have big means to do that, with the UK it's still more, we would really have all necessary equipment, Italy proposed its bases, EU proposed all what it could do, really, I hope we won't wait that the guys over the Atlantic find the temperature of the Mediterranean cool enough. Maybe the earliest and the less statu quo possible would be the best since declarations of Gaddafi camp about negotiation of ceasefire could only be here to gain time, I don't know, but anyways, at worst, if some nasty things begin, if we are ready on this side of the Atlantic, I hope we won't wait for the guys over there.

Hahahahahalololololol hahaha. Thankfully we're not sending our wooden ships, or else they'd get there by 2013.

If only Diefenbaker hadn't canceled the Avro Arrow!

Ah, I can't say, CBC is more optimistic than you though, they say they'll be over Libya under 24h, that are some CF-18 exactly, and 100 to 200 men would participate.

So are idiotic US right-wingers taking bets on when France surrenders to Gaddafi?

http://lewesternculturel.blogs.courrierinternational.com/archive/2011/03/18/confirmation-les-avions-francais-en-vol-pour-la-libye.html

French warplanes are already in the air, and the first bombings will occur before 4 AM French Time, or less than one hour from this moment.

Obama isn't actually going to wait for any resolution from Congress.  Lugar is one of the few voices in Congress who wants a declaration of war for this.  Most of them don't really care.

After the UN vote:

http://feb17.info/

(it really seems to have been something in Benghazi, soldiers that will participate in that won't do it for nothing)

I support the no-fly zone.

Well, now we can say honor is (partly) saved. Except for Germany which should really go f-ck itself now, what a disappointment.

Let's just hope it's not too late...

Hey, Merkel already has it hands full explaining why she was for nuclear energy before she was against it. She can't need another unpopular military intervention at this point (since any form of military action for any reason is inherently unpopular here). After all, there are elections this and next sunday. At least there were no dead German soldiers in Afghanistan this week.

Brazil is also pretty disappointing in its abstention

Oh, yeah, and I guess that Qadaffi's secret of the Hungarian Dwarf is pretty damn bad if France wants to bomb the sh**t out him that fast.


I thought all our CF-18s were broken for a change. Hopefully Steve doesn't gain points out of this to make the idiots who live in this country forget his foreign policy failures otherwise.

Libya just declared a total ceasefire.

Now let's see if they actually do it.

They should say "Allez ! Allez ! Juppé !" :D.

---

The "ceasefire" is only a way for Gaddafi to try to save time, to delay Western strikes.
He knows that Super-Barack is very, very slow on the subject, that his friend Silvio won't help and he is delighted by Merkel's and Westerwelle's out-of-date "neutralism".
But he's weak: remember how quickly he drops his nuclear research in 2003-2004, worried by being next after Saddam ?

The only problem now is not to kill too many civilians and not too many from the "wrong" tribes... or, else, it will be civil war even after Gaddafi and partly against the "West".

The no-fly zone resolution (and Germany's position regarding it) caused a small, but interesting debate here that certainly transcends party lines. Angela Merkel, Guido Westerwelle, and the leaders of SPD, Greens, and Left almost unanimously oppose military action, while medium-level representatives often vigerously disagree.

A German politician who had already voiced support for a no-fly zone last week was conservative CDU youngster (and foreign policy spokesman) Philipp Mißfelder. Today, harsh criticism came from one of the more prominent representatives of the SPD's left wing, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul: "There can't be abstentions when dealing with despots."

From what I can assess, the most "hawkish" top-level politican on the issue seems to be Renate Künast, parliamentary co-leader of the Greens, with some cautious support for the UN resolution. The statement of Green co-chairwoman Claudia Roth sounded a bit different though. I sense some conflict here.

Well, to be fair, that decision has been fully unilaterally taken by Sarkozy (apparently with our new totally unofficial special envoy, BHL). That being said, yeah, it's a total refreshment to see Juppé here and especially with a bigger power of initiative.


Indeed this ceasefire can be a way to save time, medical sources announced Misrata (West) being bombed this morning, that being said the unilateral ceasefire would have been declared after it, and frankly Merkel could have saved her last declaration about that, she said it was an 'encouraging sign', I'm not sure how it is smart or just makes sense to give so early credit to Gaddafi given who he can be and what he already did, if she doesn't want to participate for any reason, fine, it's not a reason to try to find any sign especially totally hazardous ones to try to make your position look legitimate while we are in a total floating moment.

That being said, let's watch the acts of Gaddafi while preparing ourselves, we can certainly monitor whether their troops use this time to better organize themselves or not. I heard that some officials in Paris would say that they would anyways listen to what rebels say about it before intervening, which is the way to go since we intervene in their name, but France also said that indeed it stays very vigilant. I hear contradictory sounds from what the rebels say, according to a source one of their representation would say it is a 'big step', but according to an other source who would be the 'commandant of the insurrection', named Khalifa Heftir, he considers it a 'bluff'.

A meeting about that is currently on with PM, Juppé, and others, in Matignon. Also, on the diplomatic front, seems the summit with EU, AU, and Arab League, in which there will also be Ban Ki Moon, tomorrow in Paris, will be a big step, notably to know which Arab country would participate.

Maybe Gaddafi is trying to gain time, but it also permits the coalition to gain time too to organize things, because on the military front there will be several parts to coordinate, so far here have been what I've heard about who would join:

Italy and Spain propose some bases
Canada 6 CF-18
Denmark 6 F-16
Arab countries have still to say what they will do exactly.

Tomorrow with this summit would become the big day after which all could begin if nothing started before, in case some nasty things would begin before, apparently some French and UK planes could act immediately. Apparently the UK will send their Typhoons and their Tornados, Tornados were those the guys on the French forum about military counted on and which would be some good complementary with French planes in such an operation.


Well, you never know, but really seems in this conflict, according to all what I could have seen from the West and the East, Libyans went a step beyond the tribal factor here, I'm not saying it would totally disappear, but seems they are really beyond that here, they would clearly be Libyans here.

Last news I heard:

Tunisia won't participate to any military operation. Well, understandable, they really don't have an army sized to intervene abroad, and they have home matters to deal with, they can't afford having to deal with some possibly heavy retaliations, they are the closest from Tripoli.

Ah, about the political situation in France about that, apparently nobody opposed it so far (which you can see as something when you know how strong anti-Sarkozysism can be well spread here). Let's also note the floating boat of Aubry, when Sarkozy first spoke of air strikes one week ago she kinda said it was 'daring', now she is glad of the resolution...

Belgium said it would propose some F-16 and some warships within a NATO operation.
Netherlands are studying a military participation too.

Also, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is still in Toulon, and if it has to participate, it wouldn't be there before Tuesday, but since Italy proposed its bases maybe it wouldn't even be used, but anyways, the French defensive frigate Forbin arrived close to Benghazi, it's a very modern one which can detect jets on 400 km around and which can immediately retaliate to any attack with a range of several hundreds of kilometers too.

So serious things are about to begin ?

Hey, not sure if there is even someone who knows it, I said how I saw it so far in a preceding post, if Gaddafi doesn't move, it could need the summit of tomorrow to move. Boats already there would be for ensuring defensive measures in between.

Oh, I see. I've for the entire days that the operations would begin "in a few hours" but apparently they take things slowly. If this convinces Gaddafi to stop the slaughter, fine.

Imperialists.

According to Al Jazeera, intense fights are taking place 50 km south-west from Benghazi, AFP reports a big blast and some anti-aircraft defense have been heard in Benghazi. Some bombings would be continuing on Zenten (west), Misrata, and Ajdabiya.

A few hours ago France said it was totally ready.
In the afternoon the rebels and the coalized forces coordinated some air strikes.
Some French and UK jets could take off before the summit of tomorrow in Paris.
The French base of Solenzara (southern Corsica) has been set in big emergency state this afternoon. Some planes coming from other parts of France could arrive there soon, some Awaks, some Rafales, some Mirages, and some refueler planes. A French base in Chad is on emergency state too.

Clinton would participate to the summit in Paris tomorrow.
France reaffirmed it didn't want of NATO.

Here we go again - Imperialist Europeans come to Africa and start slaughtering the natives. It is appalling.

:)

Those are as it happens in Greece, too. So they can act within hours of a green light by the French/Americans/British axis.

Yes, because moreover I have read afterward that it would also propose it out of a NATO operation, which France doesn't want.

About other European countries:

Austria, Bulgaria and Romania don't want to take part of it.
Norway wants but hasn't said what it could do so far.

Then so far we would have in EU:

Does nothing:

Germany
Austria
Bulgaria
Romania

Would eventually do something:

Netherlands
Sweden - said it could do something if a NATO request comes

Proposes something:

Italy - proposes possibly 7 bases
Spain - 2 bases and some men are available
Belgium - some F16, some mines-hunters boats
Denmark - 6 F16
Norway - not sure but could be transportation planes

France:

Awacs
Mirages
Rafales
Refueler planes
Some defensive ships
The aircraft carrier could move too

UK:

Typhoons
Tornados
Some boats

Out of EU:

Canada - 6 CF-18, some men
Qatar - not clear yet

USA:

They have specified nothing precise so far, they would do that tomorrow. But the USS Enterprise is already there and they would have told other warships to go in the Mediterranean, they could also furnish some F-15 and F-16, and their means of military satellites and electromagnetic jamming against Libyan communications.

That is for the things I've heard of so far.

As I said earlier, France already has at least 1 defensive frigate close to Benghazi, the Forbin, UK already has two frigates around Libya too, the HMS Cumberland and the HMS Westminster.

The French and UK planes that could eventually take off before the summit would only be to show a sign of force according to some last declarations, no air strikes would be planned before the summit so far.