“The military capabilities available to Qaddafi remain quite substantial,” said a senior Pentagon official who watches Libya. “What this shows is that you cannot guarantee tipping the balance of ground operations only with bombs and missiles from the air.”


Gadaffi is very smart, first he writes these kind of letters to make it seem like he not a warrior, on the other hand he bombs the hell out of Misurata.  He's forces have adapted their tactics by blending in with the civilians and infiltrating the rebels causing chaos.  But more worrying Gsadafffi is known to sponsor European terrorist groups and he has so much gold stored he can fight this war for decades!

Okay we have seen all of Africa's recent problems and most responses can be categorized as Pro-West and Anti-West, but what about solutions? I was watching a lecture by Philip Emaegwali and he made a good case that technology is the answer to Africa's problems, what do you think?

Rossikk:

All this nonsense ends the day Africa unites into either one, two, or three countries. No more.

The reason an African airport can be taken over by a France today is that Africa is balkanized into 57 mostly weak and dependent, often divided ''sovereign'' countries.

I see where you are comming from but the whole of Africa uniting is a pipe dream at present - Nkurumah and Lumumba went to their graves with that dream and Gaddafi was the last leader pushing for it - notice how Gadaffi had the picture of those two African legends behind him when he made speeches?

I believe that what Africa needs now is good management, but the leaders are hopelessly devoid of any kind of ideology that will lead to prosperity.  Look at Nigeria today, their destiny lies in the hands of a former brutal ex dictator 68 years young and a pastor,  a former policeman who is loyal to Godfathers or the incumbent who is sleep walking when he's at his best.

If each country is well managed the respect and unity will come naturally with time.

Horus:

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said the UN and France had no right to take sides in the conflict.

“The UN peacekeepers and supporting French forces in Cote d’Ivoire have started military action, taking the side of Ouattara, carrying out air strikes on the positions held by supporters of Gbagbo.

Its so funnny [b]PEACE[/b]keepers attack Ivorians   what kind of PEACE is that?? The west are taking double standards and imperialism to a new level; whilst the world watches they blantantly violate all the rules they created themselves  

pleep:

To all those people thanking france and shi7. France didnt do AYTHING they just waited until the ivorian troops did all the hard fighting then swooped in at the end for glory and a "good human rights record." this angers me so much.

The same thing happend with nigerian troops in the first ivory coast civil war. ECOWAS did all the hard fighting then the british come in at the end and take responsibility.

Don't forget that about 10 years ago the British did the same thing in Sierria Leone, the Nigerian troops did all the hard fighting and DYING.  The world was harking on about how toothless the AU was despite Nigeria's efforts so Obasanjo at the time asked the EU for Logistical help to finish off the job - but they refused.  Eventually the British came in to finish off the job captured Foday Sankoh and took all the Glory.  Looks like in 2011 Gbagbo is playing Foday Sankoh and Sakozy is playing Blair.  

Gadaffi's letter to Obama:

Our son, Excellency,

President Obama

U.S.A

Advertisement: Story continues below
We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne. You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action. I am sure that you are able to shoulder the responsibility for that. Enough evidence is available, Bearing in mind that you are the president of the strongest power in the world nowadays, and since Nato is waging an unjust war against a small people of a developing country. This country had already been subjected to embargo and sanctions, furthermore it also suffered a direct military armed aggression during Reagan's time. This country is Libya. Hence, to serving world peace , Friendship between our peoples , and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror, you are in a position to keep Nato off the Libyan affair for good.

As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed member of AlQuaeda in Benghazi.

You - yourself - said on many occasions, one of them in the UN General Assembly, I was witness to that personally, that America is not responsible for the security of other peoples. That America helps only. This is the right logic.

Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, your intervention is the name of the U.S.A. is a must, so that Nato would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair. Libya should be left to Libyans within the African union frame. The problem now stands as follows:-

1. There is Nato intervention politically as well as military.

2. Terror conducted by AlQaueda gangs that have been armed in some cities, and by force refused to allow people to go back to their normal life, and carry on with exercising their social people's power as usual.

Mu'aumer Qaddaffi

Leader of the Revolution

Tripoli 5.4.2011

debosky:


Is Italy not now a Western country? You claimed that no western countries were given deals by Ghaddafi and that is FALSE. At least be ‘logical’ enough to admit that.

'logical  this', 'logical that', whats the obsession with my screen name?    its better than debby
I made it clear why  Ghaddafi was fine with the Italians, they yeilded to his legitimate demands.  The equivalent would be for Nigeria to tell Britain to pay compensation for all  attrocities committed during colonialism, with an apology before they can be awarded lucrative oil contracts that would benefit BOTH countries.

debosky:


Canada has more oil reserves than Nigeria yet they are ‘oil hungry’? This your logic na wa oh!

Don't get over excited debo, whilst canada is indeed not an oil hungry nation; however, Canada's role in this is due to its alliance with NATO just like Italy – they have no choice but to support any military action that NATO decides to carry out. Thats why Italy is trying desperately to end these attacks to protect their interests.

debosky:

What does Australia have to do in all this?

Are they not supporting NATO?

debosky:

[size=14pt]The fact remains that the western oil companies were highly welcome in Libya by Ghaddafi [/size]

well, there is no harm in dreaming

debosky:

Did I deem it legitimate? 

I stated motives and didn't discuss legitimacy. Legitimacy is as a result of UN Resolution 1973.

I think it paramount that the rule of law should take precednce when lives are at stake don't you?

                                       You've said it yourself: --    “I stated motives and didn't discuss legitimacy”

You conviniently left out legitimacy because the actions were illegitimate

debosky:

Total produces from Libya, ENI/Agip produces from Libya. Shell and BP are exploring in Libya. ConocoPhillips recently made a discovery in Libya. Are all those not Western Companies? You are displaying an astonishing lack of logic my friend.

I will once again give a constructive, logiacal answer:
You said “BP are exploring”, that means BP are lagging behind the italian oil companies in Libya. Furthermore, billions of dollars were wiped off of BPs shares last year due to the environmental degradation caused in the Gulf of Mexico.  Now bear in mind that BP is Britains pride and joy and its biggest company but it was only allowed in because of tony Blair and was not given a free reign like in Nigeria. 

The oil hungry nations of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia were all in the cold whilst Ghaddafi had a good relationship with the Italians.  Why the Italians?  because they agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation, plus an apology for COLONIALISM! Russia's state owned oil company (stolen from its richest oligarch) has now joined up with BP and have agreed to share all profits 50/50. So that leaves China, China has secured all of Africas remaining oil wells. Do you get it now debo?

debosky:

Preventing mass killings by Ghaddafi will prevent mass migration of refugees.

Killing, to prevent  mass killings by Ghaddafi will increase mass migration of refugees and decrease the security of western europe.   

debosky:

I am highlighting the motivations involved in the actions not 'making a case' for them - let people make up their own minds.

I started this thread to listen to what people think will be the conclusion of this unfortunate episode thats all 

Busy_body:


Funny that John Stockwell the ex-CIA's expose, touched on this two leaders and categorically stated that the CIA ordered to have Lumumba eliminated to preserve "a half-billion- dollar investment in Zairian mineral resources and also played a major role in the overthrowing of Nkrumah


Hmmm, wonder what message Ghadaffi was trying to pass on

debosky:

Heheheh. . . .did I say they were doing it to 'save' the Libyans?

There are many motivating factors here:

1. The French: They were accused of being too cozy with the Tunisian 'leaders', even flying on their private jets and accepting holidays. Ditto with the Egyptian dictators. As a result, they now feel a need to 'redeem' themselves and side with the ordinary people instead of the dictators, and show they can actually put the interests of people above their own benefits.

Ok so according to your reasoning its legitimate to kill civilains, arm rebels and change a sovereign country's regime to 'redeem' ones image? If thats the case i suggest the french cabinet should go and join Pastor Adeboyes Redeemed Christian Church of God Church.

debosky:


2. Ghaddafi has a reputation - the last time this type of 'rebellion' happened, he killed thousands without mercy. The last time it happened, they bombed him temporarily and sent a signal. If the West refused to intervene this time, the commentary will be 'it's because they've signed fat lucrative oil deals that they are now looking the other way as Ghaddafi does what he does best'. The classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

who is “they”, I think you are referring to the USA's unilateral bombing in the late 80s which killed Gaddaffis daughter.  Your response is a mess with all due respect, I will tell you why:
Ghaddafi has never allowed the west to have ANY oil deal which is demeaning to his country, which is precisely why this bombing is taking place.

If you look behind Ghaddafi, when he used to make his lengthy speeches he had a picture of Nkurumah and Lumumba –  Lumumba was killed and  Nkurumah was deposed in a coup and died in exile.  Now Ghana and the Congo are now poor and completely subservient to the west - this is history repeating itself. 

debosky:

3. Libya is VERY CLOSE to Southern Europe. Already  immigrants flowing through Libya has been a recurring issue over the years. If you allow Ghaddafi to start killing people off for fun,

Killing people for fun?

debosky:


the exodus into Southern Europe will be massive, causing further strain on already immigrant-heavy and increasingly intolerant societies. A classic case of a stitch in time saves nine - you either stop the problem in Libya or deal with it when it arrives on your doorstep. They have simply taken the lesser of two evils.

You have swallowed all the propaganda, even Africa takes more refugees than Europe; secondly, to suggest that the Europeans have been idle and have not been trying to stem the flow of immigrants is ridiculous – Europe is like a fortress! Have you forgotten Morroco as a gateway to Europe?

[size=13pt]Do you think that arming wayward rebels so close to the coast of Europe will increase European security? [/size]   (UK and US confirmed they will arm them ASAP!) There is evidence that most of these terrorist, I mean rebels (we need to change their names for libya) are Mujahideen fighters who have fought all over Afghanistan and Iraq.  Infact there is evidence to confirm that the HIGHEST number of Mujahideen fighters in Iraq came from Libya.

debosky:


I actually believe the West were fooled by Muammar. They thought he had 'changed' and had 'repented'. If they kept him isolated, perhaps there would be less talk about being complicit with the regime initially, selling them arms, signing contracts and and now trying to appear to be holier than thou when the regime does what it's always done.

You have confirmed that this is all about double standards and again you have made a weak case for their actions. Subjective reasons like “I thought you had changed” is not a reason to unload 130 bombs on a country every day.  Libya was no threat to the west,  Ghaddafi's government was simply trying to quell an ilegal uprising.

tpiah!:


new generation of half libyan half american babies, etc etc.

nothing to worry about.

one love.

ha! ha! so in 50 years time we'll hear and the new president of the U.S.A Abdul Salim Al-Detroit LOL!

MandingoII:

Iran have a MAJOR heroin and opium problem.

No doubt the Western government is shipping these opiates into the country to anestizie the youung people.

okay! hmmm so the cyber virus attacks and the old opium is being put to good effect, thanks for that point. I thought Gaddafi and hos son were being cynical when they said most of the youths in Benghazi were high

MandingoII:

LOL are you kidding?

Libya will become a Western COLONY like Iraq.

So you think iraq is a foregone conclusion? Has it not made Iran more powerful in the region? remember the majority (around 75%) of Iraqis are shia and Iran is the center of shia power.

snowdrops:

Gaddafi would eventually be ousted.

before you move beyond this point, I would like to ask how? because the west are reluctant to put troops on the ground and the so called "rag-tag" army are no match for Gaddafi's well trained private army. Could this whole episode have been a mis-calculation on the part of the west?

Speaking at the international conference on Libya in London (Tue 29th March 2011 )  the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that allied air strikes would go on in Libya until Moamer Kadhafi:

1. met UN terms
2. stopped attacking civilians and
3. allowed in humanitarian aid.

This is really serious because i do not see Moamer Kadhafi yeilding to these demands, where do you think it will end?

R.I.P

Good news! hopefully, this will be the impetus the government needs to develop the Nigerian educational system.

ha! ha!

cap28:

the ameerican and british economies are on the verge of bankruptcy - their days of glory are fast running out and they know this, this is why they are fighting tooth and nail to hang on and prevent the ascension of china, the sun is about to set on the anglo/american empire, but like desperadoes they will do whatever it takes even if it means starting up a third world war to remain on top, the anglo americans do not want to live in a world where they are the underdogs.

USA has ran up the largest budget deficit of all time.  To put it bluntly the USA is BROKE!

ROSSIKE:

pleep wrote:

I'm sorry, but simply ''planning'' for your civilization to last forever is wrong-headed and doomed to failure, if the basis of your ''plan'' is at variance with the pulse of the earth, or what some refer to as natural law.

Any system built on dominance will inevitable collapse because of the strains and contradictions inherently embedded in such a system. It's like a boiling pot. You can only keep the lid on it for so long before it overflows. Dominance of one by another is contrary to the most basic, fundamental human ideal, and therefore, at some point will meet the necessary resistance internally or externally, that will ultimately kill it. Thus any system characterized by the dominance of one group of humans by another will ALWAYS meet its waterloo, no matter what ''plans'' are put in place with the hope of achieving infinite dominance.

well put, the current economic imbalance is unsustainable and like you stated if one looks at it from an objetive scientific standpoint its OBVIOUS that the balance is tipping already.

pleep:

however, there are several indicators that the wests time is numbered.
[list]
[li]lowered birth rates- smaller workforces/ smaller armies more immigrants and the populations are aging[/li]
[li]Softening of the populace- people are less willing to do dificult jobs and endure hardship[/li]

[list]
[li]people in the west are also becoming more ignorant and less educated in comparison with other countries especially in Asia[/li]
[li]The majority of people in the west are actually good decent people, not the ruthless killers and thives they once were- the government must sugarcoat its activities.[/li]
[/list]
but the real problem is not the West its the North. look at a map and you will notice that most of the powerfull countries are in the far north of the globe. When the west falls  countries like China and korea will just take its place. The honest truth is that china is obviously at a lower stage of societal development than the west is. And they will have less quams about blantant and horrible human rights abuses in the name of their national interests than the softened people in countries in like Europe and America. People in the west derive a great deal of their self esteem from beliving that they are the good guys.

Very true, India has more Phd holders that the USA has Bachelor degree holders, the consequence is that China and India now produce the majority of Engineers in the world today. And as we all know (i hope) technological advancement = economic development = military might = , The west is in decline and the east is on the rise, however the east needs Africa's resources to rise which is why its inevitable that Africa will continue to develop along side them.

ThiefOfHearts:

you people dont have a problem with the fact that he came out of his car?

That right there would have put him in jail for 5 years in the states

He's actually quite lucky.

What a silly statement Since when did getting out of your car become a criminal offence? and where did you get the 5 years from? Ridiculous!

@desholah take your blinkers off, this is an example of blatant institutional racism, he simply defended himself against 3 DRUNK attackers who had already been ejected from the casino for TROUBLE MAKING. His lawyer was paid more than $60,000 and could not prevent this talented young man from going to jail? what a joke!
[flash=425,344]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXVgiWPBJtE?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0[/flash]