Is Gaddafi going to be impossible to remove?

1. 70

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   A rally in outer Tripoli had an attendance estimated by the BBC at 30,000.
   This is the first time we have seen such support for the dictator.
   The commentator said it was almost religious in it's fervour.
   
   As every individual in Tripoli has at least one gun, are the rebels and the UN going to be able to topple him?
   
   ...or has the UN bitten off more than it can chew, and they, along with America have a never ending war to throw money at for the next 10 years?
   Did they underestimate his support?
   
   I know it surprised me!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Me also, and I think what you state here is possible.  Obama gave a half hearted support attempt at backing the UN, and folks here, as we should have, raised cain about our un-authorised envolvement.
      
      I think the UN was counting on  a full USA push, and did not get it.As well as the full effort they hoped for from France!
      
      And now the very Person they wanted dead, has managed to prove himself once more, as he has the last 40 years, a survivor.
      
      I had the opertunity to attend an offical dinner in Turkey once as part of my Job requirment, when we compleated our business there, and one of the Minister's  in attendence, made a profound statement, which I did not fully ponder at the time  nor fully understand until now.
      
      He said; The US does not understand the Arab or African Revolutionary Mind, You fight with rules, and conventions,  and you do  fight well. But... those men fight with deeper passion's- for  different reasoning!
      
      As I think back,  am begining to understand his comment more fully now.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is what happens when you let politicians run a war.
      When it comes to war, you are either all in or all out, there is no middle ground.  You would have thought Barry would have remembered this from Vietnam.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      peterxdunnposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am surprised that no one here has mentioned the main reason why the western powers have taken their present course of action in Libya. Gadaffi was proposing to introduce a new currency: the gold dinar. He was openly inviting other African and Muslim countries to join Libya in a monetary system that would use the new currency - as their exchange currency - when conducting trade: which would have included oil trading.
      
      The new currency would have directly challenged the status of the American dollar as the the world's first reserve currency: the mechanism by which the US has effectively 'taxed' the world since the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1948. A shift in the global economic balance of power would ensue if Gaddi's plan is put into practice.
      
      There have been other challenges to the dollar's supremacy: Saddam switched from the dollar to only accepting the Euro in return for Iraqi oil in 2000. This was why Bush decided: later that year when he first came to power - ie a full year before the 9/11 attack - to invade Iraq. The Iraqis were forced to readopt the dollar in 2003; even though the Euro was trading much higher at the time. This means that Iraq is not getting the best possible deal for its oil: its losing billions in potential revenue, at a time when it sorely needs capital to rebuild its infrastructure.
      
      Then we have the situation with Iran. Iran has also rejected the dollar as payment for its oil. It has also opened an oil bourse: an oil trading center, on the Island of Kish. This is why we have the likes of Tony Blair, Bush, Hilary Clinton and now William Hague saying that we should be prepared to wage war on Iran.
      
      Something else that should be considering here is: are the western powers actually supporting the rebels at all? Maybe it isn't the intention of the west to totally defeat Gadaffi's forces and bring the rebels to power. Maybe the plan is to keep the war going till both sides are bled dry. Maybe the plan is to weaken Libya in preparation for occupation by land forces. These forces would not, either, only be deployed to secure the oil fields on behalf of Exxon and BP etc. Troops will be massed in Libya for further - rapid - deployment throughout the entire middle east.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So -  the sooner the US dollar crashes to its real rate the better ??    The current state of its borrowing coupled with the over-spending as the Us tries to maintian the dollar among other things will bring the dollar down to its true rate - which appears to just above half its current value.  This will increase the severity of the national debt situation (not relieve it as some people think) which will ensure the dollar never regains its pole position.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The implications of a dollar crash are much farther reaching.  I wonder if George Sorros has a role in this after all he crashed the Pound.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               peterxdunnposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The situation is far worse than just the dollar taking a nosedive. The economies of virtually all countries are under threat. This is entirely due to the private banking cartels deliberately shrinking the money supply: by calling in old loans and not making new lines of credit available, right across Europe and in America. They will only relax this stranglehold on the money supply when we do what they want us to do. Launch an all out war against those countries in the middle east that are not allowing the likes of J P Morgan (Tony Blair now sits on the board at J P Morgan: this is why he is calling for war against Iran) to get a foot in the door and gain access to the wealth tied up in the region. This is a re-run of the great crash of 1929 which led to the second world war.
               
               To get back on subjest: Gaddafi obviously doesn't give a hoot about democracy. But then being a dictator has not prevented the west from 'constructively engaging' with tyrants in the past - and nor now. Turkmenistan has one of the worst human rights records in the world. It ranks as 171 st out 173 countries. That hasn't stopped the west from buying its oil and gas; and launching the war in Afghanistan to build pipelines that will bring Turkmenistan's riches out to the sea.
               
               So we are not supporting the rebels because Gaddafi is a dictator. Nor will ordinary Libyan's be better off without Gaddafi. Look at Nigeria whose oil wealth is only beneficial to a very small ruling elite whilst the majority grind out a life of abject poverty. This is what life will be like for the average Libyan in the future. This what they are fighting for - if only they knew it.

               replyreport
2. 61

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   They been trying to get rid of him for forty years. He is a dedicated revolutionary. The only time you ever saw anything about Libya on the Left-wing media is when they thought he would be gone in ten days. Not to worry they are bombing the place back into the stone age for
   peace no doubt.

   replyreport
3. 70

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   It's starting to look a bit crazy.
   
   The number of sorties and the fire power being dumped on Libya is mind boggling!
   The Americans under Bush were prepared to destroy all the beauty and history of Iraq just to remove one of their past puppets, and I fear they will level Tripoli to get at Gaddafi, who won't be there anyway.
   
   He has enough support to run the country from any of a dozen African countries for years to come.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      All of which is making a nice healthy profit for the arms trade and big banking. They can keep it going for months, while they work out what to do about the oil.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         exactly Para

         replyreport
      2. 70

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I fear you may be right. I only know the little I have gleaned by watching bi-partisan American press, with the exception of BBC.
         
         I wonder how many people the arms industry employs in America and Europe and who are the biggest.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I think it is likely Gaddaffi will hang on long enough to negotiate a retirement from Libya to Saudi Arabia or the Red Sea coastal resorts in Egypt.  He has billions of investments around the world but primarily in Europe.  I think he will survive if not remain in control of Libya.
            
            There have been many groups involved in the revolutionary efforts there.  One report I hear on a regular basis comes from an American journalist traveling with a group of medical people giving care to those in harms way - civilians and fighters - from all sides. 
            
            There are elements of Al Qaeda in Libya but I would bet that the Muslim Brotherhood has more influence.  We will see what happens.  I am skeptical of the reasons given for American involvement in the Libyan war.

            replyreport
4. 76

   moiragallagaposted 13 years ago

   Ghaddafi will be difficult to remove. At the present state, it is  a stalemate and will be a drawn-out conflict between the rebels and the loyalists. For now, outside interference is what will tip the balance to one side or the other. But after the experiences of such interventions in the past, doubtful that will happen. Eventually, one side or the other will gain an upper hand, but that doesn't seem likely in the near term. In the meantime, continued fighting and violence is the order of the day.
   
   One factor that has enabled Ghaddafi to hold on to power is that he has been effective in weakening his own Armed Forces. He made sure his own Army could not move against him, unlike what happened in Egypt. Another factor are the foreign fighters helping him out. Ghaddafi has also been a generous benefactor and supporter to various rebel groups in the continent, and these people are likely to be returning the favor.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That is how I read it to Moira, well said.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      the American interfearence may well end up like the bay of Pigs in the 60's, now repeated in Lybia.

      replyreport
5. 61

   recommend1posted 13 years ago

   The removal of Gaddhafi is just re-colonising Libya by the same powers who caused all the problems in the first place.  The idea that he is not well supported in his own country is just pure bu!!s#it.   The sooner the 'western' powers push off home and keep themselves to themselves the better, then the trade deals and normality of daily life seem to overcome all the barriers and all the extremists disappear.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am concerned about who would take over as well.
      
      It has been difficult to know what is going on with all the political infighting and disinformation coming out of the states.
      So I can see you believe nothing will change in the way the country is run?
      I know nothing. I have never been anywhere near there, but it looks bad in the limited press I have seen.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I've not been there either, but I have the impression that it is a very tribal society and Gaddafi has fostered this, guaranteeing that his own sect will always support him, knowing what side their bread is buttered on.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I do not think any move back into some kind of arm's length colonisation like the US is attempting in Iraq would be beneficial to anyone in that country except the few favoured ex-patriots that the western powers would set up as puppets.
         
         I just do not believe anything much in the western press about these things - they are all put there specifically to show what you are supposed to see - and that is generally a lie.  Take Iraq as example, my friends who worked in the hospitals there say that it was nothing like the media painted it in preparation for trashing that country.  This is not to say that there are not bad things or unwanted things, it is just nothing like it is painted.
         
         I would support a joint 'other country' effort to arm the objectors to the President of America as it would appear that nobody likes him - we should send arms to those who want to attack him and bomb the sh!t out of various cities to de-stabilise the country - and if anyone does not agree then how can they agree to doing the same things to any other country ?

         replyreport
6. 61

   Moderndayslaveposted 13 years ago

   Do they really want him gone?
   
   http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/26 … fis-hands/

   replyreport
7. 70

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   When it started, I felt America was trying to do the right thing morally and protect innocent people, and maybe that is true at least to Obama.
   
   Now I feel that they should have known they would have to blow the place to pieces to stop one man as in Iraq.
   
   Surely the people are being hurt by that much military activity?
   
   Arms sales and oil again as Paraglider indicated above?

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think this one started for the sake of arms sales or even oil, but the degree of commitment from Western Europe certainly has something to do with protecting the oil supply. We're very good at starting conflicts but less good at steering them, it seems.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am glad to hear you feel it was not started with nasty ulterior motive Paraglider, it seems you are right about not being able to steer them.
         
         It seems to to me a thread that runs through all the wars from Vietnam onwards.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It started of course as part of the wave of 'Arab Spring' uprisings, as did the one in Syria. In both cases the protest movement was met with inhuman force (as also happened in Bahrain), but the international responses were very different: Libya, lots of ordnance, Syria, lots of posturing, Bahrain, lots of looking the other way. hmmm...

            replyreport
   2. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If America was motivated by human suffering than why the silence about the Congo.  I think you attributing characteristics to Obama rather than accepting that the Libyan war is to protect the oil flowing to Europe.  The biggest customers for Libya's oil are France and Italy.  Once the war started it has spiraled out of control with the President in violation of the War Powers Act that his party authored and invoked time and again since its passage in the 1970s.

      replyreport
8. 70

   waynetposted 13 years ago

   Nah, just pop down to your local chemists and get some cream for that!

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport