http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971)
19 March 2011 Last updated at 16:43 GMT
French military jets over LibyaLatest
Live
French military jets are preventing forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi from attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says.
It is believed to be the first act of intervention since the UN voted on Thursday for a no-fly zone over Libya.
Western and Arab leaders have been meeting in Paris to agree a course of action to confront Col Gaddafi.
"Our air force will oppose any aggression," Mr Sarkozy said.
Hours earlier, pro-Gaddafi forces launched an assault on the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a BBC journalist witnessed.
However, the Libyan government has denied it is attacking.
'Stop the bombardment'
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Caroline Wyatt
Defence correspondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French reconnaissance jets are clearly scoping out targets in Libya. I would assume there have been special forces on the ground as well, assessing potential targets.
The planning parts of enforcing this UN resolution have been very complex - we may be talking about 100 planes involved - so once you begin enforcing that no-fly zone, you need to think about enforcing it 24 hours a day to ensure no Libyan jets get up in the air, dividing up the tasks and the bases that are going to be used.
British jets will be performing a range of tasks, with RAF Tornadoes aiming at targets on the ground, Typhoons performing air-to-air sorties, and Awacs planes and Sentinel R1s helping with mapping the ground and reconnaissance.
The supposition is that an awful lot of the operation will be based in southern Italy and the Mediterranean.
French aircraft have also flown over "all Libyan territory" on reconnaissance missions, French military sources said earlier.
The French Rafale jets took off from their base at Saint-Dizier in eastern France, a source told the Agence France-Presse news agency.
The planes encountered no problems during the first few hours of their mission, the source said, and the flights would continue for the next several hours.
The US would use its "unique capabilities" to reinforce the no-fly zone, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that further delays would put more civilians at risk. However, Mrs Clinton said again that the US would not deploy ground troops in Libya.
A naval blockade is also being put in place, said Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
In other developments:
Italy has offered the use of seven of its military bases which already house US, Nato and Italian forces
Canada says its fighter jets have now reached the region but will need two days to prepare for any missions
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said he believes British, French and Canadian aircraft will launch the first airstrikes, which could come within hours
The new UN resolution authorises "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians.
The international community was intervening to stop the "murderous madness" of Col Gaddafi, Mr Sarkozy said.
"In Libya, the civilian population, which is demanding nothing more than the right to choose their own destiny, is in mortal danger," he warned. "It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal."
The rebels' leader had earlier appealed to the international community to stop the bombardment by pro-Gaddafi forces.
A jet also appears to have been shot down over Benghazi. A rebel spokesman was quoted as saying the downed jet was a rebel plane which had been shot down by pro-government forces.
AdvertisementIan Pannell in Benghazi: "The fighter jet... span out of control and plummeted to the ground"
Reports from Benghazi suggest hundreds of cars packed with people were fleeing eastwards as fighting spread.
The United Nations refugee agency says it is preparing to receive 200,000 people fleeing the fighting, amid reports of hundreds of cars full of people heading for the Egyptian border, while others are attempting to flee on foot.
The first families had arrived at the Egyptian border, extremely frightened and traumatised, saying some of their homes have been completely flattened said UNHCR spokeswoman Elizabeth Tan.
However, the BBC's Ben Brown, who is at the border, says so far there are a handful of families, in addition to the migrant workers who have been there since the crisis started.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said the world must "speak with one voice" on Libya.
Fighter jet shot down, appears to be one of Gaddafi's. Was it shot down by anti-aircraft guns or a French fighter!
(Conflicting news, also claims that it was a Rebel fighter)
Any sign of Gerry Adams releasing a statement of the current military activity in Libya. Sinn Fein/IRA are good friends with Col. Gaddafi but it is all quite from them. Are they on the ground already? or has their MI5 handlers curtailed them?
Didnt the brits cosy up to him too lately?
What a crazy world. Hard to process all the stuff going on and the we have mayo facing the dubs as well.
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
What a crazy world. Hard to process all the stuff going on and the we have mayo facing the dubs as well.
Mayo people cant talk about Military intervention. You were cowards in the war of Independence and when the French came it wasn't called the races of Castlebar for no reason. Run and hide is the correct term.
Mayo certainly has your number Peter. Share with us what happened to you at the hands of mayo.
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:33:29 PM
Mayo certainly has your number Peter. Share with us what happened to you at the hands of mayo.
I have nothing at all against Mayo. I just wont stand for hypocrisy is all.
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
What a crazy world. Hard to process all the stuff going on and the we have mayo facing the dubs as well.
Mayo people cant talk about Military intervention. You were cowards in the war of Independence and when the French came it wasn't called the races of Castlebar for no reason. Run and hide is the correct term.
Just for future reference, when you forget where you are from yet again & lecture others on hypocrisy.
Hypocrites? Well whatever, but I think you have issues of some sort with mayo.I leave the last word with yourself Peter.
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:54:06 PM
Hypocrites? Well whatever, but I think you have issues of some sort with mayo.I leave the last word with yourself Peter.
I have absolutely nothing against Mayo at all. Its just when I see them on about Military intervention etc and this kind of stuff I think it is correct to point out that they did nothing for Irish freedom and dont have the right to lecture others. Its nothing personal whatsoever.
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 05:51:36 PM
Any sign of Gerry Adams releasing a statement of the current military activity in Libya. Sinn Fein/IRA are good friends with Col. Gaddafi but it is all quite from them. Are they on the ground already? or has their MI5 handlers curtailed them?
Never mind the geopolitical earthquake that's bringing a wave of democracy to the Arab world. Never mind the dictators dropping like flies. Never mind the biggest power-shift in this world since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It's all about the IRA, isn't it? Got to get the little digs in at every opportunity.
I think you'll find it was the British government that was cosying up to Gaddafi in recent years.
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:54:06 PM
Hypocrites? Well whatever, but I think you have issues of some sort with mayo.I leave the last word with yourself Peter.
I have absolutely nothing against Mayo at all. Its just when I see them on about Military intervention etc and this kind of stuff I think it is correct to point out that they did nothing for Irish freedom and dont have the right to lecture others. Its nothing personal whatsoever.
Hypocrite much, you actively take pleasure in 6 counties of Ireland being part of a foreign Union.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2011, 06:59:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:54:06 PM
Hypocrites? Well whatever, but I think you have issues of some sort with mayo.I leave the last word with yourself Peter.
I have absolutely nothing against Mayo at all. Its just when I see them on about Military intervention etc and this kind of stuff I think it is correct to point out that they did nothing for Irish freedom and dont have the right to lecture others. Its nothing personal whatsoever.
Hypocrite much, you actively take pleasure in 6 counties of Ireland being part of a foreign Union.
Yes and I'm from Mayo. Point proved. Sure your taking the queens shilling now arent you?
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 07:07:07 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2011, 06:59:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:54:06 PM
Hypocrites? Well whatever, but I think you have issues of some sort with mayo.I leave the last word with yourself Peter.
I have absolutely nothing against Mayo at all. Its just when I see them on about Military intervention etc and this kind of stuff I think it is correct to point out that they did nothing for Irish freedom and dont have the right to lecture others. Its nothing personal whatsoever.
Hypocrite much, you actively take pleasure in 6 counties of Ireland being part of a foreign Union.
Yes and I'm from Mayo. Point proved. Sure your taking the queens shilling now arent you?
you, on the other hand are struggling with her english.
looks like there are plenty of ordinary folk in Tripoli who support Gadaffi.
France have just surrendered. ;D
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
Quote from: All of a Sludden on March 19, 2011, 07:21:00 PM
France have just surrendered. ;D
life may take a turn for the worse in Gay Paris under the new gadaffi regime.
Quote from: balladmaker on March 19, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
Oil
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
Oil
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
Oil
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
They already get their Oil
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
What a crazy world. Hard to process all the stuff going on and the we have mayo facing the dubs as well.
Mayo people cant talk about Military intervention. You were cowards in the war of Independence and when the French came it wasn't called the races of Castlebar for no reason. Run and hide is the correct term.
The english were the ones "racing" out of Castlebar you idiot, the Mayo people along with Humberts army the ones chasing them. It wasn't during the war of independence either but the 1798 rebellion. What a gobshite you are.
Back to Libya, it is hard to know what the hell is going on but seems like the UN are 2 weeks late as usual!
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 19, 2011, 08:18:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
What a crazy world. Hard to process all the stuff going on and the we have mayo facing the dubs as well.
Mayo people cant talk about Military intervention. You were cowards in the war of Independence and when the French came it wasn't called the races of Castlebar for no reason. Run and hide is the correct term.
The english were the ones "racing" out of Castlebar you idiot, the Mayo people along with Humberts army the ones chasing them. It wasn't during the war of independence either but the 1798 rebellion. What a gobshite you are.
Back to Libya, it is hard to know what the hell is going on but seems like the UN are 2 weeks late as usual!
I never said it was in the war of Independence Einstein. Locally it was known as the races because the locals ran away from the battle
Jaysus lads wud ye ever ignore the clown
Quote from: balladmaker on March 19, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
O feck, does that mean Ireland's going in! ::)
Quote from: All of a Sludden on March 19, 2011, 07:21:00 PM
France have just surrendered. ;D
Very unfair sterotype. The French army was devistated at Dunkirk creating a sheild so the British and some of the French Army could escape back to Britain.
In the last 1,000 years the French have won a higher percentage of battles than any other major European Nation, including England/Britain, HolyRomanEmpire/Prussia/Germany, DutchRepublic/Kingdom, Austria/Austo-Hungarian, Russia/Soviet Union etc.
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 10:38:20 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 19, 2011, 08:18:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Solan the Great on March 19, 2011, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: mannix on March 19, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
What a crazy world. Hard to process all the stuff going on and the we have mayo facing the dubs as well.
Mayo people cant talk about Military intervention. You were cowards in the war of Independence and when the French came it wasn't called the races of Castlebar for no reason. Run and hide is the correct term.
The english were the ones "racing" out of Castlebar you idiot, the Mayo people along with Humberts army the ones chasing them. It wasn't during the war of independence either but the 1798 rebellion. What a gobshite you are.
Back to Libya, it is hard to know what the hell is going on but seems like the UN are 2 weeks late as usual!
I never said it was in the war of Independence Einstein. Locally it was known as the races because the locals ran away from the battle
We must all bow before the one true Lord of hilariousness.
I propose you drop the 'Peter' and 'Solan' from you name so we rightfully can praise your greatness.
Quote from: balladmaker on March 19, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
+1 ballad
when we aspire to be like other countries its always Scandinavian countries norway, Sweden, finland don't see them getting mixed up in this kind of stuff and their economies are doing OK their health service is good etc.
wonder when Edna will volunteer Irish troops I'd say hes jumping up and down at the back of the room with his hand up like some teachers pet who thinks hes knows the answer.
as for going into Saudi the Brits/yanks wouldn't dare because it would trigger the Chinese and the Russians all worrying about the oil. basically this reminds me of a documentary i saw about the flood plains in Africa its great when its raining but when the rivers dry up to a pool of water only some of the crocs survive. i don't know how long oil will last but I'm willing to bet that a yank will burn the last gallon. as i once heard two posh English toffs discussing 'the problem with the Arabs is that they're in the bloody way'
Quote from: lawnseed on March 20, 2011, 12:23:38 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 19, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
+1 ballad
when we aspire to be like other countries its always Scandinavian countries norway, Sweden, finland don't see them getting mixed up in this kind of stuff and their economies are doing OK their health service is good etc.
wonder when Edna will volunteer Irish troops I'd say hes jumping up and down at the back of the room with his hand up like some teachers pet who thinks hes knows the answer.
as for going into Saudi the Brits/yanks wouldn't dare because it would trigger the Chinese and the Russians all worrying about the oil. basically this reminds me of a documentary i saw about the flood plains in Africa its great when its raining but when the rivers dry up to a pool of water only some of the crocs survive. i don't know how long oil will last but I'm willing to bet that a yank will burn the last gallon. as i once heard two posh English toffs discussing 'the problem with the Arabs is that they're in the bloody way'
Very good Lawnseed, as Ireland's battle group in the European Rapid Reaction Force is the Nordic one, along with Denmark, Sweden & Finland, you won't mind so. If we go in it will be alongside our Nordic comrades.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 20, 2011, 12:54:17 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on March 20, 2011, 12:23:38 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 19, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
+1 ballad
when we aspire to be like other countries its always Scandinavian countries norway, Sweden, finland don't see them getting mixed up in this kind of stuff and their economies are doing OK their health service is good etc.
wonder when Edna will volunteer Irish troops I'd say hes jumping up and down at the back of the room with his hand up like some teachers pet who thinks hes knows the answer.
as for going into Saudi the Brits/yanks wouldn't dare because it would trigger the Chinese and the Russians all worrying about the oil. basically this reminds me of a documentary i saw about the flood plains in Africa its great when its raining but when the rivers dry up to a pool of water only some of the crocs survive. i don't know how long oil will last but I'm willing to bet that a yank will burn the last gallon. as i once heard two posh English toffs discussing 'the problem with the Arabs is that they're in the bloody way'
Very good Lawnseed, as Ireland's battle group in the European Rapid Reaction Force is the Nordic one, along with Denmark, Sweden & Finland, you won't mind so. If we go in it will be alongside our Nordic comrades.
they can all die for oil if they like as long as its not me or mine. sure isn't ireland largest battalion already there the British army, sure dont ye all want to be soldiers? nows your chance
Just make sure you've enough oil for the chain of your bicycle.
Quote from: thejuice on March 20, 2011, 01:19:32 PM
Just make sure you've enough oil for the chain of your bicycle.
things change juice, by your post i think your suggesting that we cant do without oil, i saying that we have no choice. what makes you think that any of the super powers currently hovvering over libya's oil wells are gonna share the dwindling puddle of oil with ireland. if the country is to prosper we must break our dependancy on oil. imo it is the prime objective of any irish government once that is achieved we are no longer beholding to any foreign state/oil co/bank.
i live in an area where 12000 people were in full time employment in factories where they didnt have oil nor electric surely we can match 200 year old technology
Libya being bombed tonight again by the Brits whilst the Americans say that really they haven't much if anything to do with the direct military action and are handing over control of the military action to the Brits and the French. The americans also say that they don't want to target Gadaffi nor do they want to displace him.
Cute hoors.
Gadaffi is lining his people up outside bomobed schools, hospitals and other public buildings to show the outside world how the UN / NATO are being unreasonable.
Quote from: balladmaker on March 19, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
1: WTF has the conflict in Libya to do with the UK? Have they yet to cop on that their days of empire building are over?
The Brits and the Gaddafi regime have a bit of history. Funding the Provos, shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and the Libyan embassy siege, Pan Am 103, etc. The regime has been a pain in the neck and despite the recent thaw there's no sign that the fella is actually sane or thinks rationally. So the UK does have a dog in this fight.
Quote
2: Why are UK PM's among the first to come out to say we are sending in the planes, troops etc? I never hear of the PM's of Finland, Denmark, or the Chancellor of Germany saying the same thing. But then again, they are pretty much financially stable countries ... I wonder is there a link between not fighting wars in other people's countries and domestic economic conditions?
See above. Plus, the other countries you mention don't have the same military muscle that France and the UK has. Germany has a well oiled military machine but they're very reluctant to use it for reasons which should be fairly obvious. Plus, Obama seems to be holding back here and it's a rare opportunity for Sarkozy and Cameron to get a bit of international limelight as defenders of freedom without having to get the yanks to do all the heavy lifting. And since it's principally an air campaign it doesn't carry the same risks as a ground assault, which would be very unpopular at home. This is a relatively low-risk operation with a potentially big payoff if it works.
And are you really suggesting that the UK is any worse off financially than just about anybody else in Western Europe at the minute?
Quote
3: Is Libya not an internal dispute for power? Should they not be left to sort it out on their own without the UK and French jostling for position over oil rights?
In an ideal world, yes. But the wrong* side is winning. There's a sense of the early 1990s brewing here, like when the iron curtain came down. If the west can be seen to be taking the side of the oppressed people of the Arab world then maybe, just maybe, the fundamentalists over there will hold the west in higher esteem.
Since the government has air superiority and is using it to push the rebels back, enforcing a no-fly zone would be just enough to tip the balance in the rebels' favour. If they win, then a democracy emerges in Libya which is grateful to France and the UK. Wouldn't it be better to have an oil-rich country on Europe's back door with a friendly government rather than an unpredictable and unpopular dictatorship propped up by western interests?
*What? "Who are we to decide who the wrong side is" you say? If it's a choice between a popular revolt and an unelected mentally unstable dictator with a history of backing terrorism then it should be an easy choice to make.
Quote
4: Why are the UK and France not chomping at the bit to get into Saudi Arabia at present? Is it because they know it's a fight they can never win ...
"Getting in?" Who said anything about "getting in?" There's the small matter of geography for one thing. Libya is closer to Europe than Saudi and the Brits and French don't have to mount an expensive and logistically tricky long distance mission there. But if a decent strength popular uprising emerges in Saudi Arabia that isn't dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, then it's a good bet that the west would be only too happy to give it a gentle nudge in the right direction too. It's not like they actually think the "sons of bitches but they're our sons of bitches" approach is the ideal setup.
Now that the former imperialist powers have found a conscience and a desire to protect human rights, can we expect to see them moving against Bahrain,Yemen and Saudi, as well as enforcing a no fly zone over Gaza to protect innocent civilians
Quote from: Pangurban on March 21, 2011, 12:48:27 AM
Now that the former imperialist powers have found a conscience and a desire to protect human rights, can we expect to see them moving against Bahrain,Yemen and Saudi, as well as enforcing a no fly zone over Gaza to protect innocent civilians
Ah, the old "you shouldn't topple one dictator if you aren't going to topple every single one of them in the world" fallacy.
How do you propose they "move against" the Saudi royal family without turning the entire Arab world against them? Some muslims are a bit touchy about western military forces in what they see as holy land you know.
QuoteCute hoors. Gadaffi is lining his people up outside bomobed schools, hospitals and other public buildings to show the outside world how the UN / NATO are being unreasonable.
A commonly used tactic by
victimized Arab regimes that I've highlighted
on numerous occasions here...you sound surprised :-\
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/libya-says-may-give-oil-deals-to-china-india/146528-2.html (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/libya-says-may-give-oil-deals-to-china-india/146528-2.html)
Oh and this had nothing to do with the UN resolution either ;)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bp-to-start-drilling-off-libyan-coast-2035002.html
QuoteBP to start drilling off Libyan coast
Oil giant's shock revelation is the latest twist in a tale of politics, pollution, terrorism – and violent death
By Brian Brady and Susie Mesure
The tortuous saga of BP, the Gulf of Mexico, the Lockerbie bombing and an America which feels itself badly wronged took another turn yesterday when it emerged that the oil company is about to start drilling at an even greater depth in, of all places, Libyan waters.
And, as that information was being absorbed, there came an announcement that Jack Straw, the former justice secretary, had declined an invitation to attend the upcoming US Senate hearing into possible links between BP and the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 259 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103, and 11 Lockerbie residents. Megrahi, who was diagnosed with cancer, was put on a plane back to Tripoli after doctors said he had only three months to live.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating allegations that the release, officially on compassionate grounds, was ordered in return for economic co-operation, including access to oil and gas fields. Tony Blair, former prime minister and "friend of Gaddafi", has also become embroiled in the affair.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 21, 2011, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on March 21, 2011, 12:48:27 AM
Now that the former imperialist powers have found a conscience and a desire to protect human rights, can we expect to see them moving against Bahrain,Yemen and Saudi, as well as enforcing a no fly zone over Gaza to protect innocent civilians
Ah, the old "you shouldn't topple one dictator if you aren't going to topple every single one of them in the world" fallacy.
How do you propose they "move against" the Saudi royal family without turning the entire Arab world against them? Some muslims are a bit touchy about western military forces in what they see as holy land you know.
well to be fair, you need to have a bit of consistency when dealing with these dictators and who's to say a 'move against' the saudi royal family would even turn the Saudi population against them, let alone the Arab world?
How do you judge how popular a dictator is within their own country?
Quote from: johnneycool on March 21, 2011, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 21, 2011, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on March 21, 2011, 12:48:27 AM
Now that the former imperialist powers have found a conscience and a desire to protect human rights, can we expect to see them moving against Bahrain,Yemen and Saudi, as well as enforcing a no fly zone over Gaza to protect innocent civilians
Ah, the old "you shouldn't topple one dictator if you aren't going to topple every single one of them in the world" fallacy.
How do you propose they "move against" the Saudi royal family without turning the entire Arab world against them? Some muslims are a bit touchy about western military forces in what they see as holy
land you know.
well to be fair, you need to have a bit of consistency when dealing with these dictators and who's to say a 'move against' the saudi royal family would even turn the Saudi population against them, let alone the Arab world?
How do you judge how popular a dictator is within their own country?
Easy. Count how many of his posters are getting battered by the locals shoes!
Quote from: omagh_gael on March 21, 2011, 10:47:26 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 21, 2011, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 21, 2011, 02:53:51 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on March 21, 2011, 12:48:27 AM
Now that the former imperialist powers have found a conscience and a desire to protect human rights, can we expect to see them moving against Bahrain,Yemen and Saudi, as well as enforcing a no fly zone over Gaza to protect innocent civilians
Ah, the old "you shouldn't topple one dictator if you aren't going to topple every single one of them in the world" fallacy.
How do you propose they "move against" the Saudi royal family without turning the entire Arab world against them? Some muslims are a bit touchy about western military forces in what they see as holy
land you know.
well to be fair, you need to have a bit of consistency when dealing with these dictators and who's to say a 'move against' the saudi royal family would even turn the Saudi population against them, let alone the Arab world?
How do you judge how popular a dictator is within their own country?
Easy. Count how many of his posters are getting battered by the least amount if shoes!
But what if you don't have any shoes?
Ah well, in that case you'd call an election were every man and woman could exercise their democratic right to support or oppose their respective dictator.
It is a pity France never had the balls to enforce a no fly zone over Gaza.
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2011, 01:03:37 PM
It is a pity France never had the balls to enforce a no fly zone over Gaza.
I suspect our little yankie friends would have had an objection on behalf of Israel.
Why are the Anericans being so coy about their involvement whilst the Brits and the French are stivking their chests out and mouthing away ?
This in spite of out of the 124 missiles fired so far, 122 of them were American missiles.
Quote from: lawnseed on March 20, 2011, 12:23:38 PM
when we aspire to be like other countries its always Scandinavian countries norway, Sweden, finland don't see them getting mixed up in this kind of stuff and their economies are doing OK their
While Sweden are not on (yet) this junket they are fairly supportive and are of course part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.
Norway are expressed a wish to be involved but have not partaken. They had forces in Iraq until 2004 and have forces in Afghanistan
Danish fighters (with approval of their parliament) have already partaken in bombing runs in Libya and have forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finland are not active in Libya but have not ruled out providing support and have forces in Afghanistan.
On the whole I think it is untrue to state that Scandinavia is not involved in these things. If we in Ireland were to take their lead, we might have a better economy but would have a lot more involvement in "this kind of stuff"
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 21, 2011, 05:34:00 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on March 20, 2011, 12:23:38 PM
when we aspire to be like other countries its always Scandinavian countries norway, Sweden, finland don't see them getting mixed up in this kind of stuff and their economies are doing OK their
While Sweden are not on (yet) this junket they are fairly supportive and are of course part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.
Norway are expressed a wish to be involved but have not partaken. They had forces in Iraq until 2004 and have forces in Afghanistan
Danish fighters (with approval of their parliament) have already partaken in bombing runs in Libya and have forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finland are not active in Libya but have not ruled out providing support and have forces in Afghanistan.
On the whole I think it is untrue to state that Scandinavia is not involved in these things. If we in Ireland were to take their lead, we might have a better economy but would have a lot more involvement in "this kind of stuff"
/Jim.
yes jim your right the vikings are stuck in this as well, i have to say i'm surprised. this is a very worrying development as countries that we normally see as moderate voices of reason/neutral start squaring up over civil disputes in libya etc.. but as said here they dont care about gaza. even our own country offering to get involved and already involved in afganistan. i dont know where this is going
Quote from: lawnseed on March 21, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 21, 2011, 05:34:00 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on March 20, 2011, 12:23:38 PM
when we aspire to be like other countries its always Scandinavian countries norway, Sweden, finland don't see them getting mixed up in this kind of stuff and their economies are doing OK their
While Sweden are not on (yet) this junket they are fairly supportive and are of course part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.
Norway are expressed a wish to be involved but have not partaken. They had forces in Iraq until 2004 and have forces in Afghanistan
Danish fighters (with approval of their parliament) have already partaken in bombing runs in Libya and have forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finland are not active in Libya but have not ruled out providing support and have forces in Afghanistan.
On the whole I think it is untrue to state that Scandinavia is not involved in these things. If we in Ireland were to take their lead, we might have a better economy but would have a lot more involvement in "this kind of stuff"
/Jim.
yes jim your right the vikings are stuck in this as well, i have to say i'm surprised. this is a very worrying development as countries that we normally see as moderate voices of reason/neutral start squaring up over civil disputes in libya etc.. but as said here they dont care about gaza. even our own country offering to get involved and already involved in afganistan. i dont know where this is going
Obviously you are presuming you are right about this intervention, so that sets the tone of your argument (like all other people including myself).
You may find the practicalities of fighting Israel or China are very different. You can ask countries to intervene in genocide when they have the means to make a difference. To take on a country with very sophisticated conventional weaponry and actual nuclear/biological or chemical capabilites and functioning delivery systems is an entirely different ball game. Its why nobody could run to Georgia's rescueYes I understand that a lot of the reason European or other powers cannot take on Israel or indeed Hezbolla or Hamas is because of the Americans.
Trust me intervention and interference is not just a Western game or a legitimate armed forces game. How about China supply arms to Africa, their dark shadow over Taiwan (yes I understand the argument) & in Africa. Chavez in South America, How about the IRA in Spain or South America. How about India in Bangladesh, how about Iran in Iraq & Lebanon, extreme-Islamic groups worldwide, American-RightWing Christian fanatics in the West Bank, how about Israel in Lebanon, how about Syria in Lebanon, how about Saudi in Israel/Occupied Territories, Ethiopia in Somalia, the list goes on an on.
Quote from: orangeman on March 21, 2011, 05:28:02 PM
Why are the Anericans being so coy about their involvement whilst the Brits and the French are stivking their chests out and mouthing away ?
This in spite of out of the 124 missiles fired so far, 122 of them were American missiles.
Simple they don't want to be seen to be involved in entering another country and trying to overthrow a dictator as they have made a mess of all the others. Obama has tried to change this policy very cleverly. He is feeding it to the media that he wishes to make relations between the Islamic world and the West better. whilst he is secretly stepping up campaigns against these terrorists organisations. Doing this in the name of promoting democracy is only accepted by idiots, the real reasons are financial and all done to secure states around the world with the best interests of the big hitters at heart.
1 United States of America warplane crashed in Libya. The pilots ejected closed to Rebel held territory. It is believed it was mechanical failure of the aircraft.
Coalition forces
US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
Denmark: F-16 aircraft
Belgium: F-16 aircraft
Coalition forces
US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
Denmark: F-16 aircraft
Belgium: F-16 aircraft
Ireland (Shannon): Jumbo Breakfast Roll 2X$10
Quote from: muppet on March 22, 2011, 01:50:44 PM
Coalition forces
US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
Denmark: F-16 aircraft
Belgium: F-16 aircraft
Ireland (Shannon): Jumbo Breakfast Roll 2X$10
[/b]
class.
Obama trying to get out of this conflict as quickly as he got into it.
It's getting hot and he seems not to want any part of it any longer and is happy to leave the others idiots, Cameron and Sarkozy to deal with the fall out.
The price if gas in the US is getting to his people ?.
Can't blame him. I can't help feel a twinge of sympathy for Gadaffi now he has all of these people and their war machines lined up against him. Most of us will have a natural empathy with the underdog. As this thing drags out, more people will start of voice their concerns over what is happening even if Sky News and BBC are doing their best to cheer-lead the glorious "allies". People will start asking why they are all so keen to get in there - oil?
What was needed was decisive action. If they wanted rid of him, they needed to go in on the ground last week, all guns blazing, set the rebels up in government, get the f**k out before anyone had time to question what was going on and lap up the goodwill from the new government in the form of oil contracts. It's now beginning to look like the old imperialist powers looking to plunder someone else's natural resources. No sympathy here for them...
Quote from: Ulick on March 24, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
Can't blame him. I can't help feel a twinge of sympathy for Gadaffi now he has all of these people and their war machines lined up against him. Most of us will have a natural empathy with the underdog. As this thing drags out, more people will start of voice their concerns over what is happening even if Sky News and BBC are doing their best to cheer-lead the glorious "allies". People will start asking why they are all so keen to get in there - oil?
What was needed was decisive action. If they wanted rid of him, they needed to go in on the ground last week, all guns blazing, set the rebels up in government, get the f**k out before anyone had time to question what was going on and lap up the goodwill from the new government in the form of oil contracts. It's now beginning to look like the old imperialist powers looking to plunder someone else's natural resources. No sympathy here for them...
To be honest, did it not always appear that way ?.
No oil in sunny Zimbawe ( and a whole lot of other places besides ) but there's not a word about the tyrant that has been bludgeoning his people for more than just a few years now.
One of these (French Dassault Rafale fighter jet)
(http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/116919/Rafale.jpg)
just destroyed
one of these (G-2/Galeb )
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSATboD8UDsDOZeBXMiIGBNqc7F1VAQGSyeUKkmrBo6yH1v-o76)
after it had landed.
At least it might have meant 1 or 2 less dead pilots.
French have also attacked a Libyian Airforce Base.
Ulick sympathetic to Gaddaffi ! Unbelievable.
Quote from: Ulick on March 24, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
Can't blame him. I can't help feel a twinge of sympathy for Gadaffi now he has all of these people and their war machines lined up against him. Most of us will have a natural empathy with the underdog. As this thing drags out, more people will start of voice their concerns over what is happening even if Sky News and BBC are doing their best to cheer-lead the glorious "allies". People will start asking why they are all so keen to get in there - oil?
What was needed was decisive action. If they wanted rid of him, they needed to go in on the ground last week, all guns blazing, set the rebels up in government, get the f**k out before anyone had time to question what was going on and lap up the goodwill from the new government in the form of oil contracts. It's now beginning to look like the old imperialist powers looking to plunder someone else's natural resources. No sympathy here for them...
Are you kidding me?
Quote from: Ulick on March 24, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
Can't blame him. I can't help feel a twinge of sympathy for Gadaffi now he has all of these people and their war machines lined up against him. Most of us will have a natural empathy with the underdog. As this thing drags out, more people will start of voice their concerns over what is happening even if Sky News and BBC are doing their best to cheer-lead the glorious "allies". People will start asking why they are all so keen to get in there - oil?
What was needed was decisive action. If they wanted rid of him, they needed to go in on the ground last week, all guns blazing, set the rebels up in government, get the f**k out before anyone had time to question what was going on and lap up the goodwill from the new government in the form of oil contracts. It's now beginning to look like the old imperialist powers looking to plunder someone else's natural resources. No sympathy here for them...
I'm not really understanding you here. In one sentence you are promoting more decisive action leading to oil contracts, in the next criticizing the potential 'plundering' of resources?
Anyway, I thought this article was a good one on the various moral contradictions.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/22/libya/index.html
Quote from: tyssam5 on March 24, 2011, 08:17:46 PM
I'm not really understanding you here. In one sentence you are promoting more decisive action leading to oil contracts, in the next criticizing the potential 'plundering' of resources?
Anyway, I thought this article was a good one on the various moral contradictions.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/22/libya/index.html
Not promoting or agreeing with it Tys, just saying that if they wanted to do the thing right (from their point of view), that was the action to take. The longer it drags on, the more opportunity there will be for Gadaffi to win the propaganda war and maybe win back the support of his own people.
I'd have no sympathy for Gadaffi or be sentimental about his regime that survived in a climate of institutionalised imposed fear.
Some talk is a lot easier now that Gadaffi's troops were repelled at the outskirts of Benghazi. Who knows what other scenario we might have witnessed.
Maybe the fear of brutal reprisals from Gadaffi were exaggerated, but I doubt it. Gadaffi does not deserve a benefit of some doubt.
For sure the NATO strikes are inspired by the natural resource wealth and has all the appearances of a race for lucrative contracts. Those in the race are even squabbling with each other.
But the fundamental issue can not be ignored, the Libyan people wanted rid of Gadaffi, they started it and got themselves into a serious fix where they demanded outside interference/help. I doubt if Gadaffi will escape nor will any loyal remnants be left to wage a protracted resistance.
While I tend to back the International intervention in Libya. I wonder what happens if Gadaffi, pulls his forces back to barricks. Are the international community supposed to just patrol. What happens if Rebel force move towards Gadaffi loyalist cities, are the Gadaffi forces allowed to fight to defend themselves? Are the International community bound to prevent the Rebels mortaring or bombing loyalist towns and cities. I tend to be on the side of the Rebels. But what are the terms of engagement. Have the Rebels carte blance ot advance if they are or become capable to do so. Just wondering!
People who seem to know the score are now saying the most likely outcome is a partitioned Libya.
That should work!
Quote from: Hardy on March 25, 2011, 09:58:51 AM
People who seem to know the score are now saying the most likely outcome is a partitioned Libya.
That should work!
Not sure of the ethnic or political makeup of Libyia, but isn't Libyia 3 Italian colonies thrown together. Not sure if Libyia falls into this category, but much of Africa are unrelated groups thrown together, it does is not necessarly an Ireland, Vietnam, Yeman, Korea or Germany.
Interesting piece:
Published on Sunday, March 27, 2011 by Toronto Star Our Dance with Arab Dictators
by Haroon Siddiqui
When we allow ourselves to be pushed into thinking about a people and a region as a monolith, sans diversity and differences, we view them only in stark stereotypes. We allow racist notions to become respectable.
Thus "the Arab street," a contemptuous phrase the media dare not use for public opinion elsewhere. There is no "Canadian street." No "American street." No "British street." No "French street." But Arab public opinion, emanating in the street — emotional and irrational — is to be dismissed.
Similarly, we are told that all Arabs/Muslims are hard-wired to mistreat women. Like blacks being prone to violence and Catholics to abusing boys.
And in the middle of this glorious Arab spring, we are instructed to keep our enthusiasm in check and ponder instead that democracy may not be part of the Arab DNA.
These crude formulations do serve a purpose. They keep the focus of Arab troubles exclusively on Arabs, as though we have had no part in the mess.
For decades, Arabs have been denied democracy mostly by client regimes of the United States and Europe that financed and trained the dictators' security set-ups. The mandate of these dreaded outfits has been to keep "the street" quiet, lest it resonate with what we did not want to hear.
Of the 22 members of the Arab League (18 really, if you ignore Comoros, Mauritania, Djibouti and Somalia), eight are monarchies — Jordan, Morocco and the six members of the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council. They are all American/western allies. They are described by our politicians and pundits as "moderate." But they are tyrannies, in varying degrees. Six of them use torture.
There are eight other autocratic states — Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and the Palestinian Authority. Six and a half (Mahmoud Abbas being only half the PA) have been western allies. Most maintain torture chambers, which the U.S. has rented for anti-terror interrogations.
All seven have had entrenched dictatorships, five of them western allies at some point or another (Hosni Mubarak, 30 years; Moammar Gadhafi, 42 years; Abdullah Saleh, 33 years; Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, 23 years; Abdelaziz Bouteflika, 12 years). Saddam Hussein also belonged in that club until he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Our friends are all corrupt. The monarchs treat the state treasury as their own and won't divulge the dividing line between state and personal funds. Others have found ways to monetize power and amass fortunes (Mubarak $5 billion; Gadhafi $10 billion; Ben Ali $8 billion). We winked and nodded, as though the deal was that we'd enrich them for services rendered.
The West helped deny democracy to the Arabs in order to protect oil and ensure security for Israel.
When George W. Bush decided in 2003 to change that policy — "stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty" — he opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq. He adopted the same model, retroactively, in Afghanistan. And when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, Condoleezza Rice called it "the birth pangs of the new Middle East."
The Arab masses are giving us an alternate model: a non-violent grassroots demand for pluralistic and transparent democracy. They are promoting it with nothing more than raw courage, only to run into the guns, bullets, tanks and tear gas supplied, in most cases, by the West.
These brave reformers are not unaware of our role in their plight. Yet they are not blaming us or Israel. It's a sign either of their generosity of spirit or their more immediate concerns of surviving another day.
Their uprisings — each shaped by the particular circumstances of their nations and the depth of depravity of their respective rulers — have exposed the moral and even strategic bankruptcy of the western approach. Oil is available to us, yes, but at usurious rates. And Israel does not have long-term security.
A more democratic order would no more restrict the flow of oil than trade is hindered between democracies. Rather, the opposite dictum would apply: that democracy is good for business. Similarly, democracy promotes stability and peace.
Rather than being held hostage by their puppets, the U.S. and its allies must use their clout to back pro-democracy forces. The West clearly cannot military intervene everywhere. However, waging war in the name of humanitarian intervention in Libya but turning a blind eye to Bahrain and Yemen is too self-serving to ignore.
The Arab Awakening is as much about us as it is about them.
© 2011 Toronto Star
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
Libyan rebels 'sign oil export deal with Qatar'
Libyan oil production has fallen by two-thirds during the ongoing unrest Libyan rebels say they have signed an oil contract with Qatar to export oil from rebel-held territory.
"We are producing about 100,000 to 130,000 barrels a day, we can easily up that to about 300,000 a day," rebel spokesman Ali Tarhouni told the Associated Press.
He said that shipments of crude would start in "less than a week".
The rebels say their main concern is obtaining insurance for any tankers taking oil from Libya.
Libya produces 1.6m barrels per day of oil but analysts believe this has fallen by at least two-thirds since unrest began last month.
Quote from: Banana Man on March 28, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
I see on Newsnight last night Hague and Clinton talking about arming the 'rebels' purely for defensive uses only in a limited way, whatever that means and now the Yanks have 'concerns' about al-queda influences in Derna, a town who supplied more fighters to Iraq than any other Arab town.
Be careful (again) who you get into bed with!
Quote from: johnneycool on March 30, 2011, 11:07:20 AM
Quote from: Banana Man on March 28, 2011, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 28, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
The who's who of the Libyan 'conflct';
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23947)
it's official, the world is a dark seedy place and you can take nothing at face value. The US are up to their neck in everything, talk about a modern day empire...
I see on Newsnight last night Hague and Clinton talking about arming the 'rebels' purely for defensive uses only in a limited way, whatever that means and now the Yanks have 'concerns' about al-queda influences in Derna, a town who supplied more fighters to Iraq than any other Arab town.
Be careful (again) who you get into bed with!
History repeating itself yet again.
I know Libya were accused of killing a wpc in England many years ago, that they supplied weapons to the IRA - to many not necessarily a bad thing - and were accused of the Lockerbie bomb, although I heard a relative of a victim of that say on radio recently that the relatives believed now that a Syrian or Syrian backed group was actually responsible and appeal evidence for the appeal that never came clearly pointed to that.
Could any of the posters here list a number of these attrocities that Libyans are supposed to have suffered under Gadaffi or what are the things that he has done which make him so bad, at least in comparison to say George Bush.
And why if he was so bad was there an irrigation system, the largest in the world, put in so that every part of Libya has access to fresh water and why the average wage in Libya when all these attacks started was twice that of Egypt?
Quote from: dowling on March 30, 2011, 01:16:17 PM
I know Libya were accused of killing a wpc in England many years ago, that they supplied weapons to the IRA - to many not necessarily a bad thing - and were accused of the Lockerbie bomb, although I heard a relative of a victim of that say on radio recently that the relatives believed now that a Syrian or Syrian backed group was actually responsible and appeal evidence for the appeal that never came clearly pointed to that.
Could any of the posters here list a number of these attrocities that Libyans are supposed to have suffered under Gadaffi or what are the things that he has done which make him so bad, at least in comparison to say George Bush.
And why if he was so bad was there an irrigation system, the largest in the world, put in so that every part of Libya has access to fresh water and why the average wage in Libya when all these attacks started was twice that of Egypt?
You post vague arguments and demand accurate lists in reply? Do it right if you are doing it at all.
Ah but sure he got the boot into Bush...that's all that matters :D
Quote from: muppet on March 30, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: dowling on March 30, 2011, 01:16:17 PM
I know Libya were accused of killing a wpc in England many years ago, that they supplied weapons to the IRA - to many not necessarily a bad thing - and were accused of the Lockerbie bomb, although I heard a relative of a victim of that say on radio recently that the relatives believed now that a Syrian or Syrian backed group was actually responsible and appeal evidence for the appeal that never came clearly pointed to that.
Could any of the posters here list a number of these attrocities that Libyans are supposed to have suffered under Gadaffi or what are the things that he has done which make him so bad, at least in comparison to say George Bush.
And why if he was so bad was there an irrigation system, the largest in the world, put in so that every part of Libya has access to fresh water and why the average wage in Libya when all these attacks started was twice that of Egypt?
You post vague arguments and demand accurate lists in reply? Do it right if you are doing it at all.
I don't really understand why you're saying I'm making vague arguments, I only related a few points. There are some on here who are applauding attacks on Libya and Im only asking for some substance to their posts. Neither do I see the point of highlighting some of my post. What's the point of that. What's your stance muppet? Can you give any details of all Gadaffi's terrible deeds?
Sorry if the ref to George Bush got under your skin Tyrone. Put another leader's name in. Doesn't matter how he's viewed, it's just to compare any leader's actions with Gadaffi. I just think it would be interesting to do but please don't get hung up on George Bush.
Quote from: gallsman on March 24, 2011, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: Ulick on March 24, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
Can't blame him. I can't help feel a twinge of sympathy for Gadaffi now he has all of these people and their war machines lined up against him. Most of us will have a natural empathy with the underdog. As this thing drags out, more people will start of voice their concerns over what is happening even if Sky News and BBC are doing their best to cheer-lead the glorious "allies". People will start asking why they are all so keen to get in there - oil?
What was needed was decisive action. If they wanted rid of him, they needed to go in on the ground last week, all guns blazing, set the rebels up in government, get the f**k out before anyone had time to question what was going on and lap up the goodwill from the new government in the form of oil contracts. It's now beginning to look like the old imperialist powers looking to plunder someone else's natural resources. No sympathy here for them...
Are you kidding me?
What about you galls man? Can you throw any light on all this?
http://tarpley.net/2011/03/30/the-libya-rebels-a-cia-secret-army-of-al-qaeda-terrorists-anti-black-racists-and-monarchists/ (http://tarpley.net/2011/03/30/the-libya-rebels-a-cia-secret-army-of-al-qaeda-terrorists-anti-black-racists-and-monarchists/)
More on the 'rebel's from Webster Tarpley.
About 8 years too late (and how many 1000's dead) but maybe Tony Blair should go on trial in an Iraqi court. Especially since its now clear he lied to the courts about motivations for the invasion.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html#disqus_thread
QuotePlans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.
The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".
But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.
Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.
The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.
Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."
The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.
The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."
After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."
Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".
BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.
Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.
The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.
Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.
Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.
"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."
Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.
Not about oil? what they said before the invasion
* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."
* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."
* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."
* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."
* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."
Tony hasn't time for that court stuff. He'smuch too busy for that.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try .................... again.
BTW this masscare is being talked up as past while - when is it due to happen or is it like the WMD ?
Libya: France to send officers to aid rebels
Misrata: City under siege
Fearing massacre in Misrata
France has confirmed that it is to send a small team of military officers to advise Libyan rebels seeking to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.A French government spokesman was quoted as saying that fewer than 10 officers would be sent.
Britain is sending a similar team to provide support to rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi.
Libya's foreign minister criticised the British plan, saying it would prolong fighting.
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised to intensify air strikes in Libya, Reuters reported.
Inspired by uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, the rebels have been fighting Col Gaddafi's forces since February. The rebels, based in Benghazi, hold much of the east, while Col Gaddafi's forces remain in control of Tripoli and most of the west.
Nato is currently in charge of the no-fly zone and coalition operations have been largely confined to air attacks.
On Wednesday, Libyan state television reported that Nato aircraft were bombarding telecoms and broadcasting infrastructure in several cities.
And Maj Gen John Lorimer, a spokesman for the UK Chief of Defence Staff, said that on Tuesday, RAF Tornado and Typhoon aircraft had used precision-guided weapons to attack three tanks and a vehicle-mounted artillery piece "in and around" the besieged western city of Misrata.
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: Apr 22, 2011 23:56 Updated: Apr 22, 2011 23:56
DAMASCUS: Syrian security forces fired live bullets and tear gas Friday on pro-democracy demonstrations across the country, killing at least 49 people — including a young boy — making Friday the deadliest day of the uprising.
Protesters flooded into the streets after Friday prayers in at least nine major cities across the country.
The demonstrations are a sign that President Bashar Assad's attempts to quell the month-long protests with a deadly crackdown and promises of reform have all but failed.
Ammar Qurabi, head of Syria's National Organization for Human Rights, said the death toll had reached 49. He said at least 20 people were missing.
"Bullets started flying over our heads like heavy rain," said one witness in Izraa, a southern village in Deraa province, the same region where the uprising kicked off in mid-March.
The protest movement has been the gravest challenge against the autocratic regime led by Assad, who inherited power from his father 11 years ago. The uprising in Syria takes its inspiration from the popular revolts sweeping the Arab world. But there are significant differences in Syria that make the protest movement there all the more unpredictable.
The country's military structure is one key difference — unlike the armies of Tunisia and Egypt, Syria's military and security apparatus will almost certainly stand by Assad, at least for the time being. That means there could be darker days ahead as the uprising gains momentum, something that has implications far beyond Syria's borders. Damascus stands in the middle of the most combustible conflicts in the region because of its web of allegiances, from Lebanon's Hezbollah and Gulf powerhouse Iran.
On Friday, tens of thousands of people protested in the Damascus suburb of Douma, the central cities of Hama and Homs, Latakia and Banias on the coast, the northern cities of Raqqa and Idlib, the northeastern Kurdish region and the southern province of Deraa.
As the protesters dispersed, the scope of the bloodshed began to emerge.
Outside the capital, witnesses said they saw at least five corpses at Hamdan Hospital. All suffered gunshot wounds.
In Deraa, other witnesses said at least 10 people were killed when protesters marched in front of the mayor's office in Izraa. They said an 11-year-old boy was among the dead.
A video posted on the protest movement's main Facebook page showed a man carrying a bloodied boy near a building as another child could be heard weeping and shouting "My brother!"
Qurabi said the fatalities occurred mostly in Hajar Aswad near Damascus and in the central city of Homs.
The protest movement has crossed a significant threshold in recent days, with increasing numbers now seeking the downfall of the regime, not just reforms. The security crackdown has only emboldened protesters, who are enraged over the deaths of more than 200 people over five weeks.
No sign of NATO ::)....not enough oil I guess
Re: Syria, Trukey should have the military capactity to carry out airstrikes on Syria if necessary, but could draw a whole world of terrorist trouble on themselves. (the terrorists probably would have little or nothing to do with Syria itself).
From what I have heard about Syria is that its a great country, pity about the government.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 23, 2011, 11:30:32 AM
Re: Syria, Trukey should have the military capactity to carry out airstrikes on Syria if necessary, but could draw a whole world of terrorist trouble on themselves. (the terrorists probably would have little or nothing to do with Syria itself).
From what I have heard about Syria is that its a great country, pity about the government.
same can be said about lots of countries.....including our own.
Nato shite in the nest again !!!
There may be trouble ahead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570
The Americans spend 700 billion a year on military. And about ten per cent of that amount on educating their kids.
Finally, an American politician, who isn't afriad to speak his mind :
CNN could not independently confirm the reports, and NATO said in a statement Sunday that the alliance was "aware of unconfirmed media reports that some of Gadhafi's family members may have been killed."
"We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of this ongoing conflict," said Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's military operations. However, Bouchard said, all targets "are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the Gadhafi regime's systemic attacks on the Libyan population ... We do not target individuals."
But U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a leading supporter of the Libya campaign, called the elder Gadhafi a "murderer" and "a legitimate military target."
"He's not the legitimate leader of Libya, and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system," Graham told "Fox News Sunday." The South Carolina Republican is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It's all gone very quiet over there -
All I'm hearing now is that the ICC prosecutor is issuing arrest warrants for war crimes.
He'll be a busy boy if he gets all the war criminals throughout the world.
The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor is seeking the arrest of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi and two others for crimes against humanity.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi bore the greatest responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.
ICC judges must still decide whether or not to issue warrants for their arrest.
The Libyan government has already said it will ignore the announcement.
Deputy Foreign Minister Khalid Kaim said the court was a "baby of the European Union designed for African politicians and leaders" and its practices were "questionable".
Great article :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963
Quote from: orangeman on June 07, 2011, 09:59:13 AM
Great article :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963
Interesting certainly, but "great"? Imo it might have been a lot better had he attempted a bit of perspective.
He refers to this taking "so long" to finish. It is a mere
four months since the first stirrings of public dissent in Libya - hardly eg Viet Nam, Biafra or Kashmir.
And I don't know how many Libyans have died in those four months, but I'd be pretty confident that Gadafi would have killed many more in the first
four days had he got into Benghazi or Misrata unopposed.
Which, after the examples of Sebrenica and Sarajevo etc, where NATO forces stood idly and cravenly by, whilst thousands of innocents were massacred, would have been entirely unacceptable in a country a short boat ride from Europe.
As for the Americans deciding to avoid committing military forces, that is clearly a function of their own domestic politics. We can be pretty sure that the USA is still pulling the strings on behalf of the West diplomatically, it's just that this is being done quietly, behind the scenes, and without the (obvious) use of their own military forces.
As for his "Worse to Come?" question, of course this could develop into one almighty mess, with civil war, decades of unrest and all sorts of terrorist groups emerging etc. But the writer seems not to realise that had there not been any Western intervention, and Gadafi had clung on, that would only have been "kicking the can further down the road". That is, Gadafi has to die/get kicked out sometime and as history has demonstrated countless times in the past, the longer and more cruelly a dictator holds on to power, having "united" his country solely by repression and brute force etc, the worse the mess will be when he finally goes. Which is only what may be being witnessed eg in Yemen or Syria right now, entirely without the intervention of foreign military forces.
As for what Britain hopes to gain from this. As I've already said, Britain and France etc could hardly not get invoolved to a minimum extent (i.e. to prevent massacre). And as is often the case, once you're in, it is often impossible not to get sucked further in, since had NATO withdrawn after a month or two, Gadafi would simply have regrouped and wiped out the opposition anyhow.
Therefore the West is hoping to end the conflict sooner than it might have, with less death, destruction and division than would otherwise have been the case, in the hope that whoever does take over will be the "least worst" option, as well as being favourably disposed towards us for the help we've given in toppling Gadafi.
You're not confused in any way with the UK governments flip flopping on Gadaffi EG?
One minute he was a despot, next he was OK to the point that institutions were able to accept his donations and for his currecy to be printed in the UK, then all of a sudden he's straight back to a despot. Taking the goings on in Syria, Yemen & Bahrain, I find it difficult to undeerstand why Gaddaffi alone is being isolated and all the others are given the free run to quash whatever dissent exists.
We are being fed a media message which doesn't tell the full truth IMO
Quote from: theskull1 on June 07, 2011, 01:57:07 PM
You're not confused in any way with the UK governments flip flopping on Gadaffi EG?
One minute he was a despot, next he was OK to the point that institutions were able to accept his donations and for his currecy to be printed in the UK, then all of a sudden he's straight back to a despot.
The (claimed) justification for Blair's earlier
rapprochement with Gadafi was that it persuaded the latter to renounce Weapons of Mass Destruction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3335965.stm
I'm not entirely sure I buy this, but it nonetheless seems inevitable that had the West continued to shun Libya, Gadafi would still have found some other "rogue state" willing to get round sanctions and sell him WMD in exchange for Libyan oil etc. At which prospect, his African neighbours were at least as concerned as the West, as evidenced by the African Union's support for NATO's initial action against him.
Of course, there was clearly no way of persuading Gadafi to divest himself of the
conventional weapons which he is now turning on the insurgents, but consider this. Had the West indicated that it would not intervene when Gadafi's regime was threatened, and he had still had WMD, do you think he would have hesitated to use eg Chemical Weapons in Benghazi or Misrata? Of course not.
And what would people have said then, had we still been his "new best friend"?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 07, 2011, 01:57:07 PMTaking the goings on in Syria, Yemen & Bahrain, I find it difficult to undeerstand why Gaddaffi alone is being isolated and all the others are given the free run to quash whatever dissent exists.
With Libya, there is a reasonable chance that Western intervention will bring about a "better" outcome for all concerned than if the West had stood idly by. Whereas I'd guess the firm concensus amongst Western nations/NATO was that military intervention in Syria or Yemen would only have made things worse,
much worse, for all concerned.
As for Bahrain, whilst the US Fifth Fleet is based there, there is no chance of the West intervening militarily, or even opposing the Saudi intervention in support of the regime. But do not believe that that will always be the case:
"... sources said the administration of President Barack Obama appeared to be preparing for the collapse of the Sunni kingdom in Bahrain. They said Washington does not intend to protect the regime of King Hamad Bin Issa Al Khalifa.
'The Americans have written off Bahrain and are believed to be working out some arrangement with the Iranians that will protect the Americans from the mobs,' the source said." http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/wtarc/2011/ss_military0291_03_16.asp
Quote from: theskull1 on June 07, 2011, 01:57:07 PMWe are being fed a media message which doesn't tell the full truth IMO
No doubt.
Then again, it was ever thus in matters of
realpolitik.
Anyhow, as GK Chesterton used to say,
"If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly!"
NATO making eejits of themelves - do they use lads out of the TA or what ?
Nato has admitted "a weapons systems failure" may have led to civilian casualties in Sunday morning's air strike in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.
In a statement, the alliance said the intended target of the strike was a military missile site, but "it appears that one weapon" did not hit it.
The Libyan government earlier said Nato bombed a residential area, killing nine civilians, including babies.
Nato is enforcing a UN resolution to defend Libyans from pro-Gaddafi forces.
"Nato regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives and takes great care in conducting strikes against a regime determined to use violence against its own citizens," said Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, commander of operation Unified Protector.
"Although we are still determining the specifics of this event, indications are that a weapons system failure may have caused this incident," he added.
The statement said that more than 11,500 sorties had already been conducted and "every mission is planned and executed with tremendous care to avoid civilian casualties".
Italy draws back in the face of more amateurish war mongering by Nato :
Italy urges Nato to suspend hostilities
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has called on Nato to suspend hostilities in Libya to allow humanitarian aid to be brought to the war-torn country.
Mr Frattini said Nato should provide data on results of its bombing campaign and guidelines on targeting errors.
Arab League Chairman Amr Moussa made a similar call on Tuesday, voicing reservations about the Nato campaign.
On Sunday a Nato missile apparently misfired striking a residential area.
The Libyan government said nine people including two young children were killed in the strike.
The alliance acknowledged that civilian casualties may have resulted from it.
Meanwhile Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi described Libya's opposition National Transitional Council as an "important dialogue partner" and an "important domestic political force".
Rebel leader Mahmoud Jibril has been holding talks with the Chinese leadership in Beijing.
Mission accomplished !!
The price of oil is on its way down and BP are ready to go back into Libya along with all the others.
Good work NATO. Take a well deserved bow.
Libya under Gaddafi:
Largest oil & gas reserves in Africa.
Supplying only 2% of the market.
National debt zero.
Keep your eye on those figures.
Humanitarian of course.
Wonder will NATO nip across to Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia to continue their humanitarian work there?
Where next for NATO ? Syria maybe or do they not have the balls for it ?
QuoteWhere next for NATO ? Syria maybe or do they not have the balls for it ?
Is there any oil in dem thar hills though?
Well done - pats on the back all round - but are the libyan people any better off today than they were 6 months ago and is the price of petrol, diesel, home heating oil going up or coming down ?
Mr Hammond said: "This is a job well done and we will be sending our crews home from tonight. I have given my personal thanks today to some of the aircrew and support personnel at Gioia del Colle."
At its peak, the UK had 2,300 personnel, 32 aircraft and four ships committed to the campaign in Libya at a cost of £160m.
The UK has flown more than 3,000 sorties, more than 2,100 of which were strike sorties, successfully striking around 640 targets[/i]
NATO and the West are not afraid of any challenge, right ??? So we can expect them to respond with full force here to this challenge ??
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has warned of an "earthquake" if the West intervenes in his country.
In a rare interview with the UK's Sunday Telegraph newspaper, Mr Assad said involvement risked transforming Syria into "another Afghanistan".
His comments came after the UN secretary-general made a new call for the repression to end.
At least 50 civilians and members of the security forces were killed on Saturday, according to the two sides.
Activists said 21 civilians were killed and that army tanks had shelled a historic district in the city of Homs.
The government said 20 soldiers had been killed in Homs, and 10 members of the security forces killed during an ambush of their bus in Idlib province.
More than 3,000 people have died in the unrest since protests calling for the government of Mr Assad to step down broke out in March.
In the Sunday Telegraph interview, Mr Assad said Western countries "are going to ratchet up the pressure, definitely".
"Syria is the hub now in this region. It is the faultline, and if you play with the ground you will cause an earthquake," he said, .
"Any problem in Syria will burn the whole region. If the plan is to divide Syria, that is to divide the whole region.
Tens of thousands rallied in Damascus on Wednesday in support of President Assad "Do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?"
President Assad admitted that "many mistakes" had been made by his security forces in the early part of the uprising, but the paper said he insisted that "only terrorists" were now being targeted.
He said he had responded differently to the Arab Spring than other, deposed Arab leaders.
"We didn't go down the road of stubborn government," he said. "Six days after (the protests began), I commenced reform.
Mr Assad described the uprising as a "struggle between Islamism and pan-Arabism.
Quote from: orangeman on October 29, 2011, 12:50:01 PM
Well done - pats on the back all round - but are the libyan people any better off today than they were 6 months ago
You appear to have opinions on what is best for the Libyan people, What do you think, how does the prospect of life now for the Libyan people fare to 6 months ago, when the suppression of civil protests happened in feb 2011?
Quote
At its peak, the UK had 2,300 personnel, 32 aircraft and four ships committed to the campaign in Libya at a cost of £160m.
The UK has flown more than 3,000 sorties, more than 2,100 of which were strike sorties, successfully striking around 640 targets[/i]
Do you measure the negative aspects of war in money terms?
I think that represents a spectacularly good deal for the Libyan Transitional Council.
They can easily pay back the entire cost (us$2bn - 3bn) of the NATO mercenaries force with 1% or 2% of the funds Gaddafi squirreled away in foreign banks (latest estimate $200bn). Where else could they have got such a highly trained strike force which could made mince out of Gaddafi's army and not have to place foot on Libyan soil?
What's the human cost to the Libyan nation?
30- 50,000 deaths? add to that injuries and all the resulting physical and emotional trauma of a civil war.
But perhaps you can do some research and find out with reasonable accuracy just what the Libyan people think about their future prospects and their opinions about the cost of the civil war - whether it be human or economic.
Do you really think that this "intervention" was all about making things better for the libyan people ?.
Quote from: orangeman on October 29, 2011, 12:50:01 PM
Mr Hammond said: "This is a job well done".
The UK has flown more than 3,000 sorties, more than 2,100 of which were strike sorties, successfully striking around 640 targets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAKMSNhMARY
I hate the American,British,French,Israeli, Nato and every other ruling class bastard that wipes out these innocent people. Clinker those type of videos are real life and you will never see them on western news. Is their anything worse than to see children suffer in tolerably? Hell won't be full till these murdering bastards are in it.
http://youtu.be/aJURNC0e6Ek
So just a few years ago the Brits were flying all over the world, rendering suspects back to Libya and Colonel Gadaffi in order to maintain Gadaffi's "security" but not long after, they blew the shit out of Gadaffi himself. Some hypocrisy there - I suppose they'd tell us that it's a different time and circumstances are altogether different etc etc.
That's like a scene from Northern Ireland !.
Quote from: orangeman on January 13, 2012, 12:22:22 AM
So just a few years ago the Brits were flying all over the world, rendering suspects back to Libya and Colonel Gadaffi in order to maintain Gadaffi's "security" but not long after, they blew the shit out of Gadaffi himself. Some hypocrisy there - I suppose they'd tell us that it's a different time and circumstances are altogether different etc etc.
That's like a scene from Northern Ireland!.
They'd do anything to get there hands on the oil.
Not like the North, they'd f**k us out of it the first chance they get!