Libya campaign will falter without more help, Nato bystanders warned

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Britain, France and the other six countries engaged in the Libya bombing campaign will struggle to keep up the intensive attacks on Colonel Gaddafi without other countries joining in, the Nato alliance has been told.

"Those who are bearing the brunt of the strike burden are increasingly pressed," said Robert Gates, the US defence secretary. "I think they'll be able to sustain it. But the question is just how much more painful it becomes, if other countries that have the capabilities don't step up."

With the Nato-commanded air strikes on Libya to be prolonged by 90 days from the end of this month, only eight of its 28 member states are involved in the campaign, which has reached a peak in tempo and intensity this week.

France and Britain are doing most of the attacks, while Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Italy and Canada are also heavily involved.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/libya-nato-bombing-appeal

[sakabatou]

1. Well then pull out

Or we're in for another quagmire.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Well I guess the stupid fuckers that lept before they looked should piss off.

Next time don't start dropping bombs on other countries on a whim.

[Warrior Dash]

31. They looked stupid when they tried to tell us that this isn't a "war."

[David__77]

3. I don't hope it falters, I hope it end in utter defeat.

Thankfully it's coming.

[joshcryer]

9. What do you think will happen to the Libyan people if that happens?

[inna]

16. uh, if they're really lucky... they won't be further, ahem, "liberated".

If they're really, really lucky, they could probably even go back to their former lifestyle of having the highest Human Development Index (an official UN index determined by combination of income, longevity and education, per capita) in all of Africa and minding their own lives (complete with evil socialist perks like free healthcare and education).

No such thing will be allowed, of course, as Libya has clearly been picked as the next victim of Western imperialism.


Gotta plunder someone, you see, and what better target than Libya, Crown of Africa and the Mediterranean Sea, replete with natural resources and conveniently vulnerable.

(And the only country in the region that was refusing to be a puppet; a Cuba of sorts! :shrug: Perfect target, like I said.)

[joshcryer]

21. You completely side-tracked the question. Are the people who are violating Gaddafi's anti-dissent...

...laws going to be treated kindly assuming NATO just disappeared? How about the refugees? Would the be allowed to return to Libya?

[Fool Count]

23. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't, it really isn't NATO's

business either way. Maybe those who raise arms in rebellion should think through all the implications of
their actions and make damn sure that they can follow through on what they started before they started it.
Of course, that applies to some leaders of NATO countries too. It looks like thinking shit off in advance
is getting too old fashioned for some.

[joshcryer]

27. No one can "be sure that they can follow through" (ie, win). No one.

That does not mean that the people who rose up in 21 cities, both in the east and in the west of Libya are wrong for doing so.

[Warrior Dash]

33. That is a question for Libyans, don't you think?

[tuckessee]

4. How can a rebellion falter when 98% of Lybians support it?

At least that's what one loud, prolific shill claimed here the other day.

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. because, what is right and proper doesn't always win

given the fairley obvious sarcasm, I don't need to tell you that, but in dreadful context it deserves to be said.

[Alamuti Lotus]

5. hoping France, Britain, etc fall by the wayside

Stupid aggressions deserve to faceplant.

[EFerrari]

7. Wouldn't want to jeopardize the coming bonanza!

The Post-Gaddafi Boom: In Libya, Foreign Bankers See a Coming Bonanza
By Vivienne Walt / Lisbon Thursday, June 09, 2011

Muammar Gaddafi remains hunkered down in Tripoli, ever defiant despite the the heaviest bombing of NATO's three-month campaign. But outside Libya, the talk has moved on from war to the business opportunities offered by a post-Gaddafi Libya.

It's hard to envision a booming Libyan economy with the country's communication infrastructure shattered by bombs and its oil fields abandoned and idle. Yet economists and investors say that as an intensifying NATO campaign brings Gaddafi's 42-year rule closer to its end, a bright future lies ahead — with Libya's mammoth energy reserves capable of financing a postwar development program strong enough to serve as a growth engine for the region. "Libya has $250 billion in foreign-exchange reserves, and it can just keep on tapping into foreign currency because of its oil sales," says Jacob Kolster, North Africa director for the African Development Bank. "The potential is huge." (Read about what mediating in Libya could cost Medvedev.)

Gaddafi's Libya is hardly poor, with few of the problems that beset neighboring Egypt, where about 40% of people live on about $2.50 or less a day. The average Libyan household income is more than $14,000 a year, according to U.N. statistics, and the literacy rate is about 86%.

Assuming that Libyans can find an inclusive political consensus that minimizes the risk of an Iraq-style insurgency after Gaddafi goes, Libya's natural wealth and educated population positions it for a massive boom — if peace, stability and a business-friendly government can be established, all of which are big ifs. The country retains considerable sovereign wealth, even if much of it is currently frozen abroad at the moment. And international energy companies that have suspended their Libya operations as a result of the conflict plan to return as soon as sufficient security has been restored to begin pumping oil again.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076467,00.html#ixzz1OrHm0yrQ


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076467,00.html#ixzz1OrHWhf6Q

[bvar22]

11. Yes! We can't have those "profits" flowing to the Libyan People.

That Oil & those PROFITS belong to the Global Oil Corporations!!!

SEE: The Iraq Oil Law.

""I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

According to the Bush Administration, the notion that the occupation of Iraq was a means to gain control over that country’s vast oil reserves is “nonsense” and “a myth.” However, in February, 2007, the proposed draft of a new law to structure Iraq’s oil industry was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

* Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.

* Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;

* Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves."

http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

Libya NEEDS someone else controlling their Oil, and exporting the profits!
Its the "Uniquely American Solution",
and it WORKS!
We just keep dropping Humanitarian Freedom Bombs on the Libyans
until they say, OK,..OK...You can have the OIL!"
.
.
Mission Accomplished!

”Gaddafi is the perfect villain for this Anglo-French-American farce unworthy of French playwright Georges Feydeau. For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

[suffragette]

12. I would imagine banker liability, such as Goldman Sachs "loss" of $ 1.3bn

will be entirely forgiven as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/31/goldman-sachs-libya-investment


Very convenient timing for them.

[inna]

15. Ha! 1.3 billion is peanuts. Try a $70 billion rip-off (Libya's sovereign-wealth fund).

Frozen/confiscated; and officially "the largest sum ever blocked in the United States".

I'll try to post links tonight from home, if I get a chance. It's effing huge and a total heist. Mega-plunder of gigantic proportions, just as the entire operation behind it.

[suffragette]

19. Interesting point

So, much money to be acquired or, if already held, kept.
And the bankers and financial industry in the middle of it all.

[Prometheus Bound]

13. The corrupt elite will find a way to control the money.

They always seem to manage to control revolutions.

Even Gaddafi seemed powerless to stop the corruption. He complained about it but nothing changed. Now watching so many top bureaucrats and generals defecting, the rebel leadership asking for billions, you know they're following the money.

[ronnie624]

34. That's it.

The potential for profit is the driving force behind Western intervention.

"We will need to build virtually anew the entire modern infrastructure," Kolster told TIME in Lisbon, where hundreds of investors and bankers are gathered this week for the African Development Bank's annual meetings.

[joshcryer]

8. Trying to get Germany to pitch in obviously.

The US won't beyond the logistics capacity we have already volunteered.

[inna]

14. Yep! Kudos to Germany and huge props to Merkel for this:

Germany, which was strongly opposed to intervention in Libya and abstained in the UN security council vote authorising the air strikes, brushed aside the Anglo-American criticism. Thomas de Maiziere, the German defence minister, said Berlin had decided not to get involved. "That's the way it will stay."

Merkel is actually one leader that I have some respect for; the rest of the crew (like Sarcozy and Berlusconi and such) are reactionary, Bush-type, sociopaths and complete tools.

[On the Road]

10. How Soon People Forget the First Gulf War

It appeared to be a stalemate for weeks. Pundits were making the same kind of comments.

Then, WHOOMP!

NATO is doing what they planned -- degrading Qaddaffi's armor, artillery, and command facilities from the air. Desertions are increasing. Qaddaffi forces are losing territory. Everything is in NATO and the rebels favor. It is just a matter of time.

[inna]

17. Duh! That's a no-brainer, to say the least. Ever heard of a "turkey shoot"?

Same thing, except that it's much more of a turkey shoot, as Libya is a tiny helpless country compared to Iraq. No one in their right mind has any doubts that Libya is no match for NATO; it's simply amazing that they lasted that long. (And a testament to how unpopular/unauthentic the so-called "rebels" are.)

The whole thing is a sick and monstrous farce; it's beyond Orwell on some levels.

[On the Road]

18. If You Have Followed the Situation at All,

you cannot possibly think that the rebels are unpopular or unauthentic. Artillery, heavy armor, and 30,000 mercenaries go a long, long way against poorly armed civilians. Air campaigns take awhile. Every report and fact on the ground shows 90% opposition to Qaddaffi, and all of the many defections have been against Qadaffi for the same reasons NATO has intervened. The Orwellian shoe is on the other foot.

To take a hands-off attitude just to be able say "Gee, my hands are clean" may be OK in some cases. To maintain that position when it means mass slaughter of innocent civilians is so unbelievably immoral it's difficult to know how to respond. Wake up!

[joshcryer]

20. Ahh, you have to appreciate the mentality.

It's predicated on the belief in Gaddafi's tyrannical propaganda, basically. The belief that Gaddafi would've happily ignored a half dozen of his anti-dissent laws, the belief that he would've happily allowed refugees (more than a half million of them) to return to Libya, the belief that he's a kind and gentle soul who is anti-imperialism.

Those who buy Gaddafi's propaganda are on the wrong side of history. The rebels were never going to stand down and without outside intervention it would've been a several year long, very bloody battle (he would've had Misrata and other cities mostly silenced by now but there would have been years of attacks against his government).

[Fool Count]

24. Years of attacks? In whose inflamed delusional mind?

It would have been over in two weeks, with no rebels to be found anywhere in Libya for
many years to come. In fact, the same exact outcome will result should NATO stop bombing
Libya and supporting the rebels tomorrow. That's like utterly beyond dispute. Instead,
NATO had to go in and destroy a perfectly decent and livable country. Why? What, there
is a shortage in the world of real hell-holes where desperately impoverished people truly
hate their tyrannical rulers? Why not try their "humanitarian" chops on those much easier
cases first?

[joshcryer]

25. Nonsense, Misrata showed overwhelming pressure against his regime.

The western mountains indeed have achieved great things with almost no NATO intervention. At the bare minimum the western mountains would've become the safe haven for the rebellion and it would have lasted easily as long as FARC has in Colombia.

[inna]

29. Conratulations on buying into the propaganda, line, hook and sinker. Way to go.

nothing to see here

[joshcryer]

37. Whose propaganda? I can explain to you why Gaddafi's words are lies...

...can you explain anything here that is dishonest? No? Didn't think so.

[Fool Count]

22. Non only the so-called "rebels" are unpopular/unauthentic,

they are quite possibly non-existent too. I am starting to suspect that the anonymous bigger part
of the allegedly 31-member Transitional National Council are nameless not because they are scared
for their families, but simply because there aren't any. The TNC just can't recruit enough
members to even resemble any kind of representative body of any legitimacy. If it wasn't for a couple
of expat imports and another pair of ex-Qaddafi turncoats there wouldn't be any TNC. And that gang
of marionettes is supposed to be a legitimate representative of the whole Libyan people? How in the
world are they supposed to rule the country after Qaddafi is gone?

[joshcryer]

26. But you have no evidence to support your nonsensical falsehoods?

The TNC has zero expats in the council, but if you knew that you wouldn't be spouting innate falsehoods. They, along with councils across Libya, will draft a constitution. The people of Libya will vote on that constitution via referendum (likely with UN observers). They will then have elections (again likely with UN observers). Libya will then be the first secular nation in the Arab world and it will be a force to be reckoned with.

[Fool Count]

28. How can anyone know if TNC has "zero expats" or not if

less than half of its members are even known by name? What possible evidence can I have? Like a video recording
of five guys saying "Let's pretend there are 33 of us" or what? On the other hand there is nothing easier than for
TNC to prove my suspicion wrong - just tell the world who the hell they are. But they wouldn't. What other popular
government refuses to even reveal its identity? Those are the people who demand control of hundreds of billions of
dollars which belong to the people of Libya. How the hell can one be sure that Libya is going to be a secular nation -
what if those councils draft and the referendum approves an Islamist constitution? Benghazi is a known Islamist
stronghold after all. Even if it does adopt a secular constitution (out of gratitude to NATO), Libya will be far from
the first in Arab world to do so. Egypt has been secular since Nasser's times, Algeria is a secular republic, so is
Tunisia for a long time, so was Iraq under Saddam, so is Syria. If by "secular" you meant democratic, that wouldn't
be true either. Lebanon is a democracy. Who is going to "reckon" with the awesome force of the puppet government of
NATO-occupied Libya, I have no idea. My best guess would be nobody.

[joshcryer]

38. True, it's possible expats are so brave as to return to volitile areas, but of the ones who have...

...publicly returned none of them are on the council that is a fact. I personally doubt expats are brave enough to go into deadly areas and try to take up power given the overwhelming sentiment against such a thing.

As far as your examples, none of them are a secular democracy. :rofl:

[WatsonT]

50. Every war ever fought was going to be quick and easy

and all the dying was going to occur among the bad guys.

[plumbob]

30. I guess the US will have to put some boots on the ground, tearfully, regretfully,

because we just can't pass up the chance to get into another expensive, deadly, wasteful war that depletes the Treasury, enriches the "right" people and provides TV pix of eevul brown dictators!


I predicted this. I'm just a couple of weeks late, looks like.


For the record, I have not supported any US military action anywhere since 1948. Not about to start now.

[Warrior Dash]

32. Do you think they will "let" us call it a "war" then?

[plumbob]

35. No, because wars end and so do war profits,

Defense means $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ forever for the "right" people.

[Warrior Dash]

45. Yep...Yemen next and Syria to follow...

the next "not wars..."

[joshcryer]

36. I've heard this BS for 3 months now, can people drop it? It's not happening.

[plumbob]

39. I had to listen to the welcome us with flowers and smiles for a lot longer

than that.

And thousands of deaths ago.

When it happens, you will admit you were wrong, won't you?

[joshcryer]

40. If it happens, which it is highly unlikely to, then of course.

People will be cheering me for being wrong, people will revel in such a disaster. People are sometimes vile that way.

[plumbob]

44. No, I'll be just as sad about being right on this one as the rest.

If you're right, I'll stand up and cheer. OK?

[Nossida]

41. Welcome to Quagmire Libya.

I watched an interview with Secretary General of NATO Mr Rasmussen
earlier this evening. The interviewer asked him if the objective of
NATO in Libya is Regime Change. No direct answer, except to say No
Qaddafi isn't a Target. I suppose that is the reason NATO bombed his
Compound and killed a Son and 2 Grandchildren. With billions invested
in Intel NATO knew exactly who was in the Compound when it was Hit.
Many see no problem with the killing of Qaddafi's Grandchildren. A
shining example of 'Humanitarian Intervention'.

Its a well known fact the 'Freedom Fighters' were financed, and armed,
by NATO, before any demonstrations even began in Libya. From Day 1.
Google it for yourself.

American Banks joke about ripping off Qaddafi's Libyan Fund openly in
the Western Media. This Humanitarian Intervention is another War for
Resources, and nothing else. Plus Qaddafi wanted to drop the US dollar
and institute a Gold Dinar.

Now the combined Air Power of England, France, Italy, and the US have
failed to bring Qaddafi down, and they are screaming for help. Sounds
rather a Sticky Wicket.

[joshcryer]

42. That's patently false, untrue, misleading slander against thousands of Libyan people...

...who don't want Gaddafi.

It's disgusting.

[Warrior Dash]

46. I am curious--do you think there is a war going on in Libya?

[Poll_Blind]

43. "PLZ send $3 Bln USD to Bank of Nigeria in order to receive shipment of Libyan Freedom"

Man, worked out well for the Kurds in '91 though, didn't it?

:shrug:

PB

[tekisui]

47. Norway is quitting by Aug. 1st. And, the Dutch are no longer

going to carry out strikes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqW2KSj7SODtHe3p7I9RLj7UleGQ?docId=ba5a8802762b472c80a388edfdb96542

[dipsydoodle]

48. It's a shame that Switzerland isn't in NATO

they could send their navy. :rofl:

[WatsonT]

49. If NATO members aren't fulfilling their obligations then perhaps it's time to rethink the entire

alliance.

The war is a stupid idea but once committed all member nations should do their fair share. Seems the US is once again getting stuck with the bill.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

51. What's NATO's obligation?

To protect North Atlatic countries from agression? Or to butt into an African civil war?

I think the countries that are sitting this one out are the ones that have it right.

And yes, the US is taking a financial hit on this war, in addition to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen.