• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libya rebels set conditions for any ceasefire

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Today, The Jerusalem Post reported:

Libyan rebels fighting Muammar Gaddafi said on Friday they would agree to a ceasefire based on conditions including that the Libyan leader's forces quit cities in the west and give the people freedom to speak out.

Libya rebels set conditions for any ceasefire

Just so it is clear, I strongly support free speech and poltical liberalization in Libya. But as enlightened as those principles are, the problem associated with the demand actually has nothing to do with those principles.

The problem is that the anti-Gadhafi forces are actually raising demands in a position of weakness. Their political performance and battlefield setbacks (even with Coalition air cover) has put them in a weaker position than they were even a few days ago for making such demands. Demands have credibility when a party has, in theory, the possibility of imposing those conditions if the demands are not met. In this case, the on-the-ground situation suggests that the anti-Gadhafi forces lack such a capability. Hence, they are not in a position to be making such demands and it is highly likely that the demands associated with troop withdrawals will be ignored by the Gadhafi regime. Those demands might connect with outsiders, but the anti-Gadhafi forces already enjoy outside support. Instead, they need to build popular support in Libya.

Why would the dictatorship do something that its foes have little chance to accomplish on their own, even with the generous air support that has been furnished? If such a realistic capability existed or appeared likely to develop, then the regime's calculations might have a better chance of shifting toward a managed exit. Of course, being that it is a truly revolutionary regime, such an exit is not the most likely course it would pursue. Nonetheless, that outcome would be far more likely if the anti-Gadhafi forces had a possible capability to force the outcome. Right now, they don't. In fact, they've been on the retreat in recent days. Therefore, the Gadhafi dictatorship is not likely to give them what they cannot hope to achieve on their own. Power and concrete battlefield achievements matter, but the anti-Gadhafi elements don't understand that.

The larger and more disturbing aspect of this fundamental lack of understanding of the fit between power, policy, and diplomacy is that if the anti-Gadhafi elements cannot get those basic principles right, how can one reasonably expect that they would suddenly be able to handle the far more complex responsibilities of governance, uniting Libya's peoples and tribes, and restoring stability, all of which would be needed to avoid the significant dangers associated with a post-Gadhafi power vacuum. Yet, those are precisely the tasks that would be required once the Gadhafi regime collapsed or was driven from power.
 
First of all...who are these rebels????

What we are seeing is mostly is a ****ed up, ineffective and disorganized mob *rebels* and is rapidly becoming into a messy stalemate. The mob's goal seems to be, the overthrow of Ghadaffi, but no coherent plan for democracy, i.e. parties, elections, etc....nada

Now, the US is involved in someone else's civil war, with little hope for a happy ending

Notice how Obama and, the Libyan thuggery describe near anarchy and open revolution as Democracy. That is sheer madness.
 
CNN and others aided and abetted the madness early on by training cameras on photogenic rebels in an attempt to romanticize the uprising which surely has roots on the political left in partnership with what they are now calling "Islamists."

When unleashed from repressive shackles this part of the world goes toward Islamic extremism as if that is its only true and natural home. The west hasn't propped up repressive regimes at great expense for nothing.
 
It doesn't matter what government precipitates out of the Libyan rebels, as long as they are loyal to us. :shrug:
 
Can Obama tell, the American public if there is a cohesive political agenda among the fighters at this point?

Seems too me there's a large gap between what Obama knows is happening and what he thinks is happening.

Now, there are reports that Washington has now warned the rebels that if they kill civilians NATO will bomb them too

WTF is going on here?????
 
Today, The Jerusalem Post reported:



Libya rebels set conditions for any ceasefire

Just so it is clear, I strongly support free speech and poltical liberalization in Libya. But as enlightened as those principles are, the problem associated with the demand actually has nothing to do with those principles.

The problem is that the anti-Gadhafi forces are actually raising demands in a position of weakness. Their political performance and battlefield setbacks (even with Coalition air cover) has put them in a weaker position than they were even a few days ago for making such demands. Demands have credibility when a party has, in theory, the possibility of imposing those conditions if the demands are not met. In this case, the on-the-ground situation suggests that the anti-Gadhafi forces lack such a capability. Hence, they are not in a position to be making such demands and it is highly likely that the demands associated with troop withdrawals will be ignored by the Gadhafi regime. Those demands might connect with outsiders, but the anti-Gadhafi forces already enjoy outside support. Instead, they need to build popular support in Libya.

Why would the dictatorship do something that its foes have little chance to accomplish on their own, even with the generous air support that has been furnished? If such a realistic capability existed or appeared likely to develop, then the regime's calculations might have a better chance of shifting toward a managed exit. Of course, being that it is a truly revolutionary regime, such an exit is not the most likely course it would pursue. Nonetheless, that outcome would be far more likely if the anti-Gadhafi forces had a possible capability to force the outcome. Right now, they don't. In fact, they've been on the retreat in recent days. Therefore, the Gadhafi dictatorship is not likely to give them what they cannot hope to achieve on their own. Power and concrete battlefield achievements matter, but the anti-Gadhafi elements don't understand that.

The larger and more disturbing aspect of this fundamental lack of understanding of the fit between power, policy, and diplomacy is that if the anti-Gadhafi elements cannot get those basic principles right, how can one reasonably expect that they would suddenly be able to handle the far more complex responsibilities of governance, uniting Libya's peoples and tribes, and restoring stability, all of which would be needed to avoid the significant dangers associated with a post-Gadhafi power vacuum. Yet, those are precisely the tasks that would be required once the Gadhafi regime collapsed or was driven from power.

I think this is being done to lend credibility in the world of public opinion. They are openly demanding freedom of speech to help garner support from outside Libya. They know that Khadafi wouldn't willingly give it to them even if they were strong. The man is a tyrrant.
 
I think this is being done to lend credibility in the world of public opinion. They are openly demanding freedom of speech to help garner support from outside Libya. They know that Khadafi wouldn't willingly give it to them even if they were strong. The man is a tyrrant.

I don't necessarily disagree. However, they already enjoy a good part of the world's sympathies. What's at question is how much support do they actually enjoy within Libya.

I would suggest that actually trying to build the movement into one with broad-based popular support among Libya's peoples/tribes and especially improving battlefield performance should take priority. Tying political demands to ceasefire terms are a sure way of blocking a possible ceasefire when one lacks the power to lend credibility to such demands.

Now, if the anti-Gadhafi forces actually had the power to possibly impose their terms, it might be a shrewd political move to offer ceasefire terms that were unacceptable to the other side. Then, the terms would likely be rejected and the stronger party could then use that rejection to continue to pursue its larger objectives beyond what might be possible were a ceasefire agreed. The anti-Gadhafi forces are not in any such position.

Their military and political tactics to date have been abysmal. Their political leaders have yet to outline a coherent sketch of what a post-Gadhafi transitional government would look like, much less stand for. No guarantees of amnesty and safety for civilians who might have supported Gadhafi's regime and/or reside in Gadhafi strongholds have been made. Few could have designed a more ineffective approach to trying to gain the support of a majority of Libya's people. Providing meaningful incentives for people to turn against the dictatorship is as close to a "no-brainer" as it gets.

The anti-Gadhafi movement has even squandered the gains made possible by the Coalition's close-air support (military efforts that went beyond the NFZ, and support that might be ending once the U.S. AC130 gunships and A-10 Warthogs are withdrawn from active use in Libya). IMO, their setbacks have much more to do with inept (and that's probably an understatement) political and military leadership coupled with an absence of broad-based popular support, than the advantages of Gadhafi's military forces, which have now been substantially degraded.
 
word is (as if anything this leadership says on a friday morning can be expected to retain any veracity even by friday afternoon) that the low flying aircraft used by the coalition against gaddafi's ground forces will by pulled by saturday which would be tomorrow

source is msnbc this morning

of course, with this whacked out crew in the white house a lot can change (and back again) between now and tomorrow morning

stay up
 
yeah...

The Pentagon is about to pull its attack planes out of the international air campaign in Libya, hoping NATO partners can take up the slack.

The announcement Thursday drew incredulous reactions from some in Congress who wondered aloud why the Obama administration would bow out of a key element of the strategy for protecting Libyan civilians and crippling Moammar Gadhafi's army.

"Odd," ''troubling" and "unnerving" were among critical comments by senators pressing for an explanation of the announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that American combat missions will end Saturday.

"Your timing is exquisite," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said sarcastically, alluding to Gadhafi's military advances this week and the planned halt to U.S. airstrikes. "I believe this would be a profound mistake with potentially disastrous consequences."

Gates said no one should be surprised by the U.S. combat air pullback, but he called the timing "unfortunate" in light of Gadhafi's battlefield gains. He noted that the air attacks are a central feature of the overall military strategy; over time they could degrade Gadhafi's firepower to a point that he would be unable to put down a renewed uprising by opposition forces, he said.

"The idea that the AC-130s and the A-10s and American air power is grounded unless the place goes to hell is just so unnerving that I can't express it adequately," Graham said.

Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., whether he was confident that NATO could sustain airstrikes alone, Gates replied, "They certainly have made that commitment, and we will see."

US Ending Its Air Combat Role in Libya - ABC News
 
today:

The nascent rebel effort in eastern Libya, sustained for weeks by revolutionary passion and zeal, has begun to fray in the face of chaotic battlefield collapses and ineffective leadership.

Many of the idealistic young men who looted army depots of gun trucks and weapons six weeks ago believed the tyrannical 41-year reign of Col. Moammar Kadafi would quickly collapse under the weight of a mass rebellion.

Now those same volunteer fighters, most of whom had never before fired a gun, have fled a determined onslaught by Kadafi's forces, which have shown resilience after being bombarded and routed by allied airstrikes a week ago.

Some exhausted rebels capped a 200-plus mile retreat up the Libyan coast by fleeing all the way to Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital, to rest and regroup. Others remained at thinly manned positions at the strategic crossroads city of Ajdabiya on Thursday.

Small groups of rebels stood their ground and fought Kadafi militiamen who seemed on the verge late Thursday of recapturing the oil city of Port Brega.

For many rebel fighters, the absence of competent military leadership and a tendency to flee at the first shot have contributed to sagging morale. Despite perfunctory V-for-victory signs and cries of "Allahu akbar!," the eager volunteers acknowledge that they are in for a long, uphill fight.

"Kadafi is too strong for us, with too many heavy weapons. What can we do except fall back to protect ourselves?" said Salah Chaiky, 41, a businessman, who said he fired his assault rifle while fleeing Port Brega even though he was too far away to possibly hit the enemy.

Libya fighting: Rebel effort beginning to fray - latimes.com

lat continues:

at least some of the rebels smoke hashish in between those wild, wasteful rifle shots into the air

their "commanders are nowhere to be found"

they are desperately short of weapons and ammo, some rebels are being charged 80 cents per bullet fired in anger

"orders are never issued except by fellow soldiers, and these are routinely ignored"

gaddafi has jammed cellphones in the east, they don't have enough phones anyway, their leaders in benghazi have appropriated 800 for personal use

"leaving each gun truck to fight on its own"

when retreating, many fire wildly into the air, sometimes barely missing their mates

captured tanks and rockets, those not yet ruined by those who don't know how to use em, sit idle

general abdul fatah younis, gaddafi's interior minister and the rebels' most recognized leader, is broadly distrusted

"another battlefield problem" are the teenagers who, some of them, hitchhike to the front, unarmed

and these are the people hillary wants to arm?

it appears they'd only end up killing themselves if we did

worry
 
meanwhile, much closer to what has always been considered of genuine interest to united states national security, today:

Thousands of protesters took to the streets in cities around Syria on Friday to chants of “We want freedom” and security forces responded with tear gas, electrified batons, clubs and bullets, killing at least seven people, according to activists, residents and a Syrian human rights group.

it's ugly---tear gas, electric batons, bullets

in douma, damascus and daraa

large, intimidating police lines outside mosques

apartments of suspects raided...

open the link

meanwhile, hillary on last sunday's ftn on cbs actually called assad "a reformer"

Clinton Says U.S. Won't Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight - Bloomberg
 
the problems are as follows:

1. obama's stated mission of protecting civilian life is impossible unless gaddafi goes

2. despite the fact that obama promised us on march 18 that we would be in libya "days, not weeks," our commitment over there appears open ended

3. his claim that nato is doing the lifting, not us, is self contradictory

4. he's not being straight with us, and he's astonishingly inept

5. his equation of united states national security with coalition maintenance, humanitarian hopes and a need to protect "united nations credibility" is extremely odd, to say the least

6. meanwhile, more immenent american concerns---israel and the gulf---are ignored

7. the rebels, it appears, are a rabble

worry
 
Last edited:
First of all...who are these rebels????

What we are seeing is mostly is a ****ed up, ineffective and disorganized mob *rebels* and is rapidly becoming into a messy stalemate. The mob's goal seems to be, the overthrow of Ghadaffi, but no coherent plan for democracy, i.e. parties, elections, etc....nada

Now, the US is involved in someone else's civil war, with little hope for a happy ending

Notice how Obama and, the Libyan thuggery describe near anarchy and open revolution as Democracy. That is sheer madness.

Kind of like the blind leading the deaf and dumb-ass Obama isn't it..
 
I'm hearing, we are pulling all aircraft out of the Libyan airspace.

We won't be committing after all. A waste of manpower and equipment with no clear goal and with no accomplishments.

Amateur Obama clearly did not do his homework
 
Today, The Jerusalem Post reported:



Libya rebels set conditions for any ceasefire

Just so it is clear, I strongly support free speech and poltical liberalization in Libya. But as enlightened as those principles are, the problem associated with the demand actually has nothing to do with those principles.

The problem is that the anti-Gadhafi forces are actually raising demands in a position of weakness. Their political performance and battlefield setbacks (even with Coalition air cover) has put them in a weaker position than they were even a few days ago for making such demands. Demands have credibility when a party has, in theory, the possibility of imposing those conditions if the demands are not met. In this case, the on-the-ground situation suggests that the anti-Gadhafi forces lack such a capability. Hence, they are not in a position to be making such demands and it is highly likely that the demands associated with troop withdrawals will be ignored by the Gadhafi regime. Those demands might connect with outsiders, but the anti-Gadhafi forces already enjoy outside support. Instead, they need to build popular support in Libya.

Why would the dictatorship do something that its foes have little chance to accomplish on their own, even with the generous air support that has been furnished? If such a realistic capability existed or appeared likely to develop, then the regime's calculations might have a better chance of shifting toward a managed exit. Of course, being that it is a truly revolutionary regime, such an exit is not the most likely course it would pursue. Nonetheless, that outcome would be far more likely if the anti-Gadhafi forces had a possible capability to force the outcome. Right now, they don't. In fact, they've been on the retreat in recent days. Therefore, the Gadhafi dictatorship is not likely to give them what they cannot hope to achieve on their own. Power and concrete battlefield achievements matter, but the anti-Gadhafi elements don't understand that.

The larger and more disturbing aspect of this fundamental lack of understanding of the fit between power, policy, and diplomacy is that if the anti-Gadhafi elements cannot get those basic principles right, how can one reasonably expect that they would suddenly be able to handle the far more complex responsibilities of governance, uniting Libya's peoples and tribes, and restoring stability, all of which would be needed to avoid the significant dangers associated with a post-Gadhafi power vacuum. Yet, those are precisely the tasks that would be required once the Gadhafi regime collapsed or was driven from power.

I think you put too much value in the use of military power so you miss more important political aspects. What the rebels demanded was not bold or decisive. All they demanded is basically a ceasefire that includes a withdrawal from the cities and allowing people their freedom of expression. This is mainly a political demand. By making a very limited demand the rebels create a win-win situation. If the government accedes to the demand of allowing freedom of expression it will mean an outburst of dissent in the West providing potential avenues for the rebels to pressure the government. At the same time refusing the offer creates the impression that the government will not stop fighting even when it only means allowing people basic rights. This reinforces the impression that the rebels are fighting for peace and freedom while the government is fighting for war and oppression.

One must also consider how it plays within the government. We have seen a continuing stream of defections in the government and military as well as obvious signs of many at a high level looking for some end to the conflict. That in fact provides the rebels a strength. Here the rebels can say that they will not allow the conflict to end so long as their demands go unfulfilled. Just the threat of a protracted war gives the rebels leverage. For Gaddafi to refuse such a limited demand and continue the conflict it can create even more disunity and dissent within his government and the military as those wanting an end see a golden opportunity quashed.

I'm hearing, we are pulling all aircraft out of the Libyan airspace.

Actually that is not exactly what is happening:

After the U.S. standdown takes effect on Sunday, Navy ships and submarines armed with Tomahawks will remain in the Mediterranean in position to resume firing if requested by NATO and approved by the Pentagon, the officials said. U.S. attack aircraft at land bases in Italy and aboard a Navy amphibious ship will also be at the ready, the officials said.

Source: The Enterprise

Basically this is just part of the official handover to NATO. The U.S. military will not be acting at its sole discretion, but instead act as requested by NATO.
 
It doesn't matter what government precipitates out of the Libyan rebels, as long as they are loyal to us. :shrug:
Loyalty in that region has a very short life, being paid off tend to make so called loyalty have longevity. In the M.E. the U.S. really has only one true ally and friend even if we didn't send them arms, the reason would be commonality.
 
Not mention we can't afford another war not even the two current ones we are engaging now.
 
That could potentially be a big if.

It is ABSOLUTELY a big risk. Problem is we're dealing with unstable people in an unstable environment. These people have lived under arbitrary and violent conditions for generations.
 
I don't necessarily disagree. However, they already enjoy a good part of the world's sympathies. What's at question is how much support do they actually enjoy within Libya.

I would suggest that actually trying to build the movement into one with broad-based popular support among Libya's peoples/tribes and especially improving battlefield performance should take priority. Tying political demands to ceasefire terms are a sure way of blocking a possible ceasefire when one lacks the power to lend credibility to such demands.

Now, if the anti-Gadhafi forces actually had the power to possibly impose their terms, it might be a shrewd political move to offer ceasefire terms that were unacceptable to the other side. Then, the terms would likely be rejected and the stronger party could then use that rejection to continue to pursue its larger objectives beyond what might be possible were a ceasefire agreed. The anti-Gadhafi forces are not in any such position.

Their military and political tactics to date have been abysmal. Their political leaders have yet to outline a coherent sketch of what a post-Gadhafi transitional government would look like, much less stand for. No guarantees of amnesty and safety for civilians who might have supported Gadhafi's regime and/or reside in Gadhafi strongholds have been made. Few could have designed a more ineffective approach to trying to gain the support of a majority of Libya's people. Providing meaningful incentives for people to turn against the dictatorship is as close to a "no-brainer" as it gets.

The anti-Gadhafi movement has even squandered the gains made possible by the Coalition's close-air support (military efforts that went beyond the NFZ, and support that might be ending once the U.S. AC130 gunships and A-10 Warthogs are withdrawn from active use in Libya). IMO, their setbacks have much more to do with inept (and that's probably an understatement) political and military leadership coupled with an absence of broad-based popular support, than the advantages of Gadhafi's military forces, which have now been substantially degraded.

Maybe it's an attempt to gain a political victory by merely claiming it, like some do here.
 
Actually that is not exactly what is happening:



Source: The Enterprise

Basically this is just part of the official handover to NATO. The U.S. military will not be acting at its sole discretion, but instead act as requested by NATO.

High throwing tomahawks isn't going to do jack but get rid of some inventory. Either way you look at this deal we are screwed.

It has become quite obvious this **** thats going down isn't for "democracy". It's some MB/ fundamentalist thingy - encouraging/coordinating, the middle east coups which Obama and his ill-advised 'advisors' have yet to fully understand the complete and utter ramifications of these actions.

We are on the wrong side of this thing because there is no right side. If we have no intention of finishing it....then why get in?
 
For all of Daffy's reputation and past deeds, what suggests that Libyan's lives have been miserable enough to endure a civil war? Remember, most of us just want to live our lives - we are not freedom fighters. We want to go to sleep safe in our beds. Not fear for our lives from bombing raids. What is the size of the rebel coalition? How many men are actually fighting in this rag-tag band? Do they even have popular support? I don't presume to know the answers; but we should have known them before we interfered.

While I do think that Obama had popular support for acting, and was criticized that he didn't act sooner, had the answers to those questions indicated otherwise, the American people would have understood our reluctance to get involved.
 
For all of Daffy's reputation and past deeds, what suggests that Libyan's lives have been miserable enough to endure a civil war? Remember, most of us just want to live our lives - we are not freedom fighters. We want to go to sleep safe in our beds. Not fear for our lives from bombing raids. What is the size of the rebel coalition? How many men are actually fighting in this rag-tag band? Do they even have popular support? I don't presume to know the answers; but we should have known them before we interfered.

While I do think that Obama had popular support for acting, and was criticized that he didn't act sooner, had the answers to those questions indicated otherwise, the American people would have understood our reluctance to get involved.


I would only add that the tide of support for action is turning rapidly as this thing unfolds. It has the feeling of a trap in every sense.

Beck: Is Libya a 'Dumb War'? - FOXNews.com


j-mac
 
I think you put too much value in the use of military power so you miss more important political aspects. What the rebels demanded was not bold or decisive. All they demanded is basically a ceasefire that includes a withdrawal from the cities and allowing people their freedom of expression. This is mainly a political demand. By making a very limited demand the rebels create a win-win situation. If the government accedes to the demand of allowing freedom of expression it will mean an outburst of dissent in the West providing potential avenues for the rebels to pressure the government. At the same time refusing the offer creates the impression that the government will not stop fighting even when it only means allowing people basic rights. This reinforces the impression that the rebels are fighting for peace and freedom while the government is fighting for war and oppression.

I'm basing my assessment on human psychology. The principles are the same, whether one is in the market place or involved in diplomacy. If one wants to pursue an agreement, there has to be mutual benefit. If, however, one wants an agreement that strengthens one's own position vis-a-vis a rival, then one has to have the capacity to possibly gain the desired benefits on one's own, the willingness to do so, and understanding by the rival of both factors. Otherwise, the rival won't agree to terms that the other party is not believed to be able to achieve on its own. Of course, there can be miscalculations.

In any case, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that the Gadhafi government rejected the highly conditional ceasefire offer. With respect to the ceasefire offer, the call for free expression wasn't the problematic area. The call for the Gadhafi government to yield battlefield gains that the anti-Gadhafi forces likely lack the capacity to reverse on their own were terms that the Gadhafi government were unlikely to accept.

Now that the ceasefire has been rejected, should the anti-Gadhafi forces continue to face battlefield setbacks, one can expect that they will be appealing to the Coalition to resume or provide even more aggressive close-air battlefield support, which would go beyond protection of civilians. Given the lack of critical interests involved, I don't believe the Coalition should provide that support. The revolution should be waged, won, or lost by Libyans.

Finally, on an unrelated point, but in yet another example on what is becoming an exhaustive list of political and military incompetence on the part of the anti-Gadhafi forces, those forces fired an anti-aircraft gun when Coalition jets were in the air. Predictably, the coalition jets struck the anti-Gadhafi forces. BBC reported:

At least 12 people are reported to have been killed when a coalition plane enforcing the no-fly zone fired on a rebel convoy between Brega and Ajdabiya late on Friday night...

The rebels were on their way to Brega when they fired into the air with an anti-aircraft gun, the BBC's Nick Springate reported from the scene of the attack.


Of course, even if no Coalition planes were in the air, this incident would have provided an example of practices that needlessly waste ammunition. When ammunition is in relatively short supply, one should not be wasting it. Of course, that basic logic is something that has, at least to date, escaped the calculations of the anti-Gadhafi forces.
 
Last edited:
All they demanded is basically a ceasefire that includes a withdrawal from the cities and allowing people their freedom of expression. This is mainly a political demand.

with all due respect, the demand for a cease fire is by definition primarily a military matter

it's also as empty a position as, say, john boehner commanding barack obama to repeal obamcare unilaterally, a posture completely separated from practicality

realpolitik not only trumps abstraction, hardball reality actually renders meaningless mere thought and argumentation

Just the threat of a protracted war gives the rebels leverage.

not when they're getting their butts kicked

the manifestation of reality, today: FT.com / Middle East & North Africa - Libyan government spurns ceasefire as 'mad'

take care, pray for our coalition soldiers, pray for the people of libya

pray for our poor perplexed president
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom