Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    From the BBC:

    A team of African leaders is on its way to Libya to try to negotiate a ceasefire between rebel forces and those loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi...

    Earlier, a statement from the South African presidency said: "The [African Union] committee has been granted permission by Nato to enter Libya and to meet in Tripoli with.. [Col] Gaddafi. The AU delegation will also meet with the Interim Transitional National Council in Benghazi on 10 and 11 April."
    BBC News - Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    IMO, if the AU delegation can reach a ceasefire that includes tangible assurances concerning the safety of civilians, NATO should endorse the ceasefire and end its operations on the basis that the stated objective of protecting civilians would have been achieved. Of course, such an outcome would probably result in some political cost to the leaders who had declared that the Gadhafi dictatorship 'must go.' However, that's a separate matter and can be mitigated by subsequent information that the rebel movement was not a broad-based popular movement, but instead only a fairly small regional one. The reality is that despite enormous international political and military support, the anti-Gadhafi movement proved almost totally inept and even if critical interests were lacking--and they are--the movement is unlikely to be up to the more rigorous tasks of governance in a multi-tribal society in which they lack broad popular support.

    Given their battlefield position, the anti-Gadhafi movement is in no position to dictate demands, as it attempted to do in a previous ceasefire proposal. Indeed, since that time, the anti-Gadhafi movement's battlefield position has worsened. That extraordinary outcome has been achieved in spite of generous NATO air support. Therefore, if the rebels reject a ceasefire that guarantees security for civilians or they attempt to impose unreasonable demands relative to their battlefield standing, NATO should take note of that intransigence, end operations, and leave the movement to its own fate so long as civilians protections are assured. NATO should make clear that harm to civilians should be avoided to the greatest extent possible in any future military operations should the rebels reject a reasonable ceasefire offer.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 04-10-11 at 10:12 AM.

  2. #2
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    From the BBC:



    BBC News - Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    IMO, if the AU delegation can reach a ceasefire that includes tangible assurances concerning the safety of civilians, NATO should endorse the ceasefire and end its operations on the basis that the stated objective of protecting civilians would have been achieved. Of course, such an outcome would probably result in some political cost to the leaders who had declared that the Gadhafi dictatorship 'must go.' However, that's a separate matter and can be mitigated by subsequent information that the rebel movement was not a broad-based popular movement, but instead only a fairly small regional one. The reality is that despite enormous international political and military support, the anti-Gadhafi movement proved almost totally inept and even if critical interests were lacking--and they are--the movement is unlikely to be up to the more rigorous tasks of governance in a multi-tribal society in which they lack broad popular support.

    Given their battlefield position, the anti-Gadhafi movement is in no position to dictate demands, as it attempted to do in a previous ceasefire proposal. Indeed, since that time, the anti-Gadhafi movement's battlefield position has worsened. That extraordinary outcome has been achieved in spite of generous NATO air support. Therefore, if the rebels reject a ceasefire that guarantees security for civilians or they attempt to impose unreasonable demands relative to their battlefield standing, NATO should take note of that intransigence, end operations, and leave the movement to its own fate so long as civilians protections are assured. NATO should make clear that harm to civilians should be avoided to the greatest extent possible in any future military operations should the rebels reject a reasonable ceasefire offer.
    It's about time the Media acknowledged the truth in Libya. The most advanced country in Africa. A goverment that used its money to advance the people. An insurrection organized externally, likely the CIA behind it, and supported by oily Corporatism to achieve more favorable OIL terms and control. Qaddaffi may have warts, but he is and has been good for Libyans. That is what a leader is supposed to be. What more needs be said? I hope Qaddaffi seeks out the Corporations and terrorists behind this insurrection and replies in kind. You know the old axiom, "if you play with fire, you'll get burned!"

  3. #3
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Many African citizens would kill to have a leader like Gaddafi. Look at Libya and what he has achieved!

    He is a Saint next to some of the "allies" of the West.
    Libya will miss him when he goes and the country divides.
    So will Africa as he funded into many African countries.

    I hope the AU stands firm against the invasion of Libya imo.
    Last edited by Laila; 04-10-11 at 10:40 AM.


  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    It's about time the Media acknowledged the truth in Libya. The most advanced country in Africa. A goverment that used its money to advance the people. An insurrection organized externally, likely the CIA behind it, and supported by oily Corporatism to achieve more favorable OIL terms and control. Qaddaffi may have warts, but he is and has been good for Libyans. That is what a leader is supposed to be. What more needs be said? I hope Qaddaffi seeks out the Corporations and terrorists behind this insurrection and replies in kind. You know the old axiom, "if you play with fire, you'll get burned!"
    Several points:

    1. There is no evidence that the CIA was behind the revolution. Indeed, if it were, the U.S. would have had a real assessment concerning the movement, its leaders, and its prospects. The U.S. has blundered in all three areas, lacking understanding of what the movement really stands for, who its key leaders are, and that it is not broadly supported by Libya's people.

    2. Access to oil was in place prior to the revolution. Libya's contribution to world oil production and the terms of access were nowhere close to justifying military intervention on the basis of oil. Hence, in my view, the U.S. had no critical interests at stake in Libya. Saudi Arabia would be entirely another story.

    3. My argument is that there were no critical interests involved to justify U.S. intervention in Libya. Given that NATO committed itself on the grounds of protecting civilians, some kind of agreement that guarantees safety of civilians should be concluded. If the rebels reject such terms, NATO should not reward their intransigence. So long as the Gadhafi regime is willing to assure safety of civilians, NATO should end its operations. NATO should not be involved in seeking regime change.

    4. While there have been positive things done in Libya, the benefits and rewards have been skewed disproportionately in favor of regime supporters/loyalists (essentially par for the course for such authoritarian regimes). The Libyan government had been involved in international terrorism in the past. My personal sentiments aside, the on-the-ground realities and absence of critical U.S. interests argue against the U.S. leading or participating in a regime change operation.

    In addition, the rebels have shown themselves to be grossly incompetent, both in politically and militarily. They have not demonstrated any meaningfu capacity for governance. They are not broadly supported by Libya's people and tribes. Hence, were the dictatorship toppled, the risks of all-out civil war would be especially high in the power vacuum that would follow.

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    so obama and his coalition went to war for a piece of paper

    that's a lot like neville chamberlain, except the pm before winnie didn't go to war, he only went to munich

    if khadafi stays, any libyan in leadership of the rebel movement is gonna have to flee the country, leaving any crippled grammas behind, or face some pretty severe consequences

    i think it is beyond controversy to note that obama really didn't want to intervene, the ladies (hillary, rice, power) "henpecked" him into it

    Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya | The Nation

    Was Obama henpecked into war? - Salon.com Mobile

    Obama's Pro Hawkish Ladies Push For Libyan Air Strikes // Current

    it's kinda ironic in that the president has largely ignored the recommendations of his superstar state secty who appears to be window dressing, rather brought in to the team to prevent her from sniping it from outside (that appears to be her husband's job)

    Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

    and here, the one time the prez does follow ms hillary's advice...
    Last edited by The Prof; 04-10-11 at 11:53 AM.

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    so obama and his coalition went to war for a piece of paper
    That might be the result of it. But few could have counted on the level of incompetence that would be displayed by the anti-Gadhafi movement. Much more importantly, considering that no critical U.S. interests are at stake, the U.S. should not be involved in any regime change operations in Libya. Guarantees of civilian safety would meet the terms of UNSC Res. 1973, providing a face-saving way to end U.S./NATO involvement in Libya's civil war.

    that's a lot like neville chamberlain, except the pm before winnie didn't go to war, he only went to munich
    The big difference between now and then is that huge British and French interests were involved in 1938. The whole balance of power was shifting in Europe toward an increasingly aggressive Germany. Appeasing Nazi ambitions would act as a catalyst for further aggression while leading to further deterioration in the balance of power. No such stakes or interests are involved in Libya. Even a total victory by the Gadhafi dictatorship would not broadly transform the region's balance of power, much less threaten the critical interests of the U.S. and regional U.S. allies.

    if khadafi stays, any libyan in leadership of the rebel movement is gonna have to flee the country
    Their safety might be accommodated in a ceasefire and that is something the rebels should seek rather than demanding regime change (something that they cannot reasonably expect to attain on their own). But if the rebels try to overreach as they did in their earlier ceasefire proposal--making demands that Libya's government reasonably could not have been expected to accept and immediately rejected--and engage in similar intransigence this time around, neither NATO nor the U.S. are obligated to rescue them from the consequences of their own incompetence, nor should the U.S. or NATO undertake sacrifices to do so.

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    yes, an exit soon is probably the best way today out of a situation we should never have gotten into

    but the paper is probably pretty worthless, is the point

    khadafi is khadafi, after all

    now i'm seeing images of bay of pigs---these perhaps freedom fighters were encouraged by us, yet it looks like we may not be there for them to help finish the job

    as far as few being likely to foresee the rabble that is the rebels, i disagree

    it was totally predictable

    and the pros were obligated to foresee

    before bombing, that is

    if i recall correctly, you were early on to the relative strength of the tyrant's domestic support, for example

    take care

  8. #8
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,298
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Fantastic that Jacop Zuma, a corrupt asshole himself is going in for talks...

    Blind leading the blind.

    Still, if something good comes of his efforts i will give him credit.

  9. #9
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Rebel incompetence aside...the real culprit is Obama's administration and has caused irreparable damage to our international standing

    What message has the President sent to other nations by calling for Omar to step down???

    Since when does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation (that they haven't defeated in war)?

    Just what made Gaddafi accountable to Obama in the first place? I think its an inflexible attitude and say that this is what we do, what we've always done and what we'll do in the future.

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    as far as few being likely to foresee the rabble that is the rebels, i disagree

    it was totally predictable
    I should have been more clear. My point wasn't that the rebels' shortcomings were not foreseeable. They were. A number of us discussed them here, i.e., the lack of broad-based popular support for the rebels, that such a lack of support was the leading reason they were suffering setbacks (ahead of the NFZ), etc.

    My point is that the gross incompetence of the rebel movement has been so staggering that it is quite extraordinary. Even the most obvious political decisions (defining what the movement stands for, providing tangible incentives for people to join the movement, addressing the Security Council/visiting leading foreign capitals to meet with foreign leaders who could be helpful, etc.) were not taken. Militarily, even the most basic elements of strategy are absent. Maneuvers are uncoordinated and chaotic with no real goals driving them, ammunition continues to be wasted, and one individual fired an anti-aircraft missile when NATO warplanes were in the skies.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •