Gaddafi Calls Ceasefire.

ash28

Degenerate wrote: »

What I think it comes down to is this: The UK and other western governments misjudged the situation and assumed Gadaffi to be finished. In the interests of fostering good relations (and continuing oil deals) with the incoming regime, they swung behind them in public statements, urging Gadaffi to go quickly without making trouble. I'm quite sure they were anticipating rapid regime change with no intervention necessary. Now it's turned into a full blown civil war, and Gadaffi may have regained the upper hand, the Western governments - having totally burned their bridges with him - are panicking.

And Gaddafi played a clever waiting game. He did nothing for a couple of weeks and I think that when he thought the West/UN weren't going to do anything he let his forces loose in earnest, pushing the rebels back to Benghazi.

What sticks in my mind was what David Cameron said in Cairo when he visited after the uprisings and the ousting of Mubarak, it went something like this."I am not a naive neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000ft"

I don't know if the objective is the overthrow of Gadaffi and all that might entail - perhaps another dictatorship - where the previously pro Gadaffi part of the population may be persecuted by the new regime.

Or is the objective to make the civil war a more level playing field - where Gaddafi still might win? He may not be able to use his airforce or tanks or warships - but Italy provided them with some very nifty speed boats handy for nipping up and down the coast and there are other ways to move infantry.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

yes i am saying that exactly. i'm saying it's clear they are only interfering because of oil interests. to say anything else is just !!!!!!!!. everyone knows it.

Of course they are. The UK needs a stable supply of oil so uses her army in order to secure that.

The British army can't solve all the ills of the world but it can still help the US-ians keep the oil flowing.

Sapphire

ninky wrote: »

it's not just about tvs and cars though is it. just about everything relies on oil whether it's the transportation and harvesting of the food we eat or the cladding for the electrical wiring in your home. not to mention pharmaceuticals.

even my recycling bins use oil in their production.

unless the government decides to re-allocate the land into smallholdings for each member of the population (would there even be enough to go around?) and we decide to forgo heat unless we have trees left on our own patches to burn or some left on common land i don't think anyone in this country is in a position to take the moral high ground over oil.

I agree – but people could buy much less of the stuff that uses oil, instead of engaging in such full-on consumerism. Anything would help...

GDB2222

Generali wrote: »

Of course they are. The UK needs a stable supply of oil so uses her army in order to secure that.

The British army can't solve all the ills of the world but it can still help the US-ians keep the oil flowing.

Hold on a second - what about Afghanistan, which you gave as a counter-example a couple of days ago? At least be consistent, Mr G.

daveyjp

daveyjp wrote: »

He's playing a game which he is winning. Declare a ceasefire, Arab league believe him, US/UK plane fire on Libyans, Arab league not happy, guess who are the bad boys? Iraq MkII

Hate to say I predicted it, but the Arab League are now saying they didn't think a no fly zone actually meant bombing airstrips and radar installations!

Iraq MkII is under way.

pompeyfaith

Gadaffi orders ceasefire from 19:00hrs GMT to all military forces so it remains to be seen if he will carry that out or if it is propaganda to get the Arab league on his side

Generali

GDB2222 wrote: »

Hold on a second - what about Afghanistan, which you gave as a counter-example a couple of days ago? At least be consistent, Mr G.

That doesn't mean all wars are about oil, there is no inconsistency. Afghanistan was a revenge attack for 9/11 that wasn't thought through. The US had to attack someone to 'get them back' for 9/11. Afghanistan was a good a place as any.

Degenerate

Generali wrote: »

That doesn't mean all wars are about oil, there is no inconsistency. Afghanistan was a revenge attack for 9/11 that wasn't thought through. The US had to attack someone to 'get them back' for 9/11. Afghanistan was a good a place as any.

That's a rather slanted way of putting it. It wasn't just a revenge attack on "someone" that picked Afghanistan as a convenient target. The Taliban were sheltering Osama Bin Laden, who coordinated 9/11, purposefully killing thousands of American civilians. This made Afghanistan the one military expedition that actually had a clear justification.

I would also question the framing of such interventions as an attack on a country, when what we are doing is supporting one side in an ongoing civil conflict.

ninky_2

Sapphire wrote: »

I agree – but people could buy much less of the stuff that uses oil, instead of engaging in such full-on consumerism. Anything would help...

not having children. it's the only meaningful contribution that can be made now.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

not having children. it's the only meaningful contribution that can be made now.

That goes against about 3,800,000,000 years of evolution so is unlikely to succeed as a policy.