Libyan Uprising - Page 56

Gaddafi's supply lines are already very stretched. But revolutionaries have been advised not to advance, and concentrate on defense.

I got reports about the supposed "zero hour" for attacks on Gaddafi, but I don't think I should share it just as yet. #Libya

Strategically, Gaddafi is more likely to try to attack Tobruq first, rather than go straight for Benghazi. #Libya

Files & records are being burned by regime in some parts of Tripoli. #Libya

Gaddafi troops are within 90 kms from Tobruq, and revolutionaries there are on high alert. #Libya

Misurata still successfully repelling Gaddafi attacks, but things are getting difficult supplies-wise. #Libya

On March 19 2011 08:51 Cain0 wrote:


Libya has oil, Congo doesn't.

I don't really see the point of the huge media frenzy in Libya concerning defenceless citizens. Gadaffi is trying to quell an armed insurrection, leave Libya to deal with its own issues. If the UN really wants to support human rights they should intervene in countries like the Congo where innocent unarmed civilians are dying in the thousands. Or the UN could have actually did something in Darfur a billion years ago when the crisis was at its height instead of doing NOTHING.

Areas such as the Congo and Darfur are where the real human rights abuses are taking place, intervene there.

British warplanes were poised to participate in bombing raids against tanks and other targets after David Cameron and Barack Obama issued an ultimatum to the Libyan leader.
The Prime Minister said that Britain would not tolerate Libya "festering" on Europe's borders, alluding to fears that Col Gaddafi may support terrorist attacks in this country.
In a statement on Friday night, the US president warned Col Gaddafi that he must withdraw troops from towns previously held by rebels, including Misurata and Zawiyah. The regime should also stop its advance on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi immediately, he said, and basic services including water and electricity should be returned to the areas.
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said that the "final result" of international action against Libya must be Col Gaddafi's departure from power.
World leaders hope that by protecting rebel areas and civilians, Libyans will force the peaceful removal of the dictator and prevent massacres.

On March 19 2011 10:07 Mofisto wrote:



I think you'll find Congo does have oil. About 70% of congo's gdp is from oil. Get your facts straight pal

On March 19 2011 10:28 Elegy wrote:


DRC is where the conflicts are, and it has no oil.

Don't mean to derail, just can't stand inaccuracies in such matters,

On March 19 2011 10:33 Mofisto wrote:


Except for its offshore oil fields. I'm not a fan of inaccuracies either

On March 19 2011 10:38 Elegy wrote:


Oil is not relevant to the DRC. You're trying to save face by arguing a fruitless point. Like Zambia, metals and minerals are the primary resources. I'm on my phone, really hard to go into detail
But I'm sure wiki does a fine job on DRC economy

On March 19 2011 08:54 Taguchi wrote:


i just see the intervention in libya as the morally correct thing to do and i dont see how on earth anyone can argue on this point, given what gaddafi has said and done in the last few weeks

i also believe it took that long for the americans to decide to get involved precisely because they saw no great profit out of it
france and england have far greater ties to the region and can thus profit the most from rebuilding etc (so they pushed for intervention more than the others)

from a moral perspective, the libyan situation seems clear cut

from an economic/political perspective its a bit more jumbled
hopefully the westerners will decide that befriending the arab nations is be better than supporting oppressive dictators (or not, when u look at bahrain, or the time it took to ask for mubarak to step down, but this is an ongoing situation so there is still hope)

the bottom line is never going to involve morality in international affairs, but when morality and the money trail coincide, why the hell argue?

In Washington on Friday, Hillary Clinton said the United States would respond only to the actions of the Libyan government, rather than its rhetoric.
The US Secretary of State said that it was not at all clear whether the announcement of a ceasefire was being matched by a cessation of violence on the ground by forces loyal to Col Gaddafi.
The statement came after reports of continued fighting in the Libyan city of Misurata.
Mrs Clinton added that the American government would continue in its demands for Muammar Gaddafi to step down.
"We will continue to work with our partners in the international community to press Gaddafi to leave and to support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people."

On March 19 2011 10:50 Disquiet wrote:


You really think the rebels will be any better than gaddafi? This is as much about tribe vs tribe as it is removing a corrupt dictator. I don't know if you know but in the past gaddafi was the one leading the rebellion to remove a dictator, and look how that turned out.

Furthermore I don't expect peace to come to libya for a long time. There was a chance if gaddafi crushed the rebellion but if the rebels win... well lets just say there are a lot of gaddafi loyalists, who will no doubt continue to fight. All I see the UN having done is extend a long and bloody civil war by helping the losing side.

"There are reports that between 600 and 2,000 people have already been killed in Tripoli. We don't know the absolute accurate number because we haven't got people there who are able to do assessments ... we've seen some horrific pictures of what is happening and we really want to be able to go in to help people in the time of need."