Their leader has been like that for the past 42 years. It isn't anything new for him. Just ignore it, and it should pass. Rumor is he is moving to Zimbabwe to get out while he can. It is the same situation as Egypt only a little more violent.
Gaddafi is a total psychopath. He has executed hundreds of his own soldiers, because they did not want to fight against fellow citizens and he is bombing his own country. Plus, he threatened that "when" he will win the civil war he will attack Italy, because his thinks that the revolt is a huge Italian conspiracy. It seems that Gaddafi will lose the war though, the army does not support him anymore and he controls only the major military bases thanks to his loyal mercenaries.
It is the same situation as Egypt only a little more violent.
No, it's way more violent. More than 10,000 persons have been killed. In Egypt not even one thousand persons died.
My question is, what the hell are Americans still doing in Libya if there has been violence in the streets for the past week and a half.
I think they tried earlier -some days ago- to get the US citizens out by plane, but that attempt failed.
The UK has sent a warship in and I think some American citizens are being dropped of in Malta on the way back to the UK. Oil prices are rocketing and if it spreads to saudi arabia we could have to send troops in for the oil.
Libya comes on the heels of Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain. What happens in Bahrain remains to be seen, but the initial fates of the others have already been sealed. This is another step forward to the end of the Middle-East dictatorships as we know it, as well as an unprecedented scene in the history of the modern world.
I was talking to a former Iraqi today on this topic, as well as his perspective on the Middle East and its place in the world, in general. I may share further insights on this in the future because it's very revealing.
What I'm particularly interested to note is the European and US response to the situation in Libya. Notably, President Obama has been criticised for his reluctance to respond to this crisis. This, in the context of his immediate response to Mubarak's actions in Egypt, in the context even of the broader crisis in the Middle East, or even going so far as the context of the truer relations between the US and the Middle-East... that's where it gets interesting. One might think "what's the relevance of the criticism here?" because well, it mightn't seem to have anything to do with the US homeland at any rate, but that in itself is what makes these events such a crucial turning point in the history of the world.
Obama's response and lack thereof could possibly be explained by his lack of willingness to jeopardize his own position. But what position might that be? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist nutjob, I'm going to ask a purportedly related question: what exactly happened between the Bushes and Saddam Hussein?
The general public of America is not going to like what I'm suggesting: America's true God isn't Jesus, it's oil. This applies, in varying degrees, to most countries in the world, the difference being that US, being the eminent superpower of the late 20th century, has the most fingers twiddling around in the pie. It's therefore the country that arguably has the most to lose if the Middle East goes up in smoke because the self-interested dictators installed there are getting ousted. Already petrol prices are going up, I bet it's going up for most of you like crazy. It'd be worse in Australia if not for Australia's dollar also strengthening at the same time, offsetting the price rise somewhat. But more to the point, the US industry as I see it is so focused on maintaining an economic monopoly that it strives to maintain status quo, because any sudden shift away from it will cause the complete and irreversible collapse of the US economy in its already vastly overburdened state. Therefore so too does the administration- a status quo of a secure access to oil while it's still plentiful... in the Middle East. But just about every community in the Middle East is set to go up in smoke, like a giant stack of dominoes all the way from Egypt to Morocco. The scary part is thinking about who is going to take control next, and what this will do to the balance of power and influence.
My opinion overall is that any status quo in the Middle-East is completely unsalvageable. This is a people-driven revolt, one stemming from a motivation so ingrained in the hearts and mind of the people of each country that no amount of force is going to stop it from spreading. It would be very interesting to see if anything happens to the centerpiece of Middle-Eastern oil empires, Saudi Arabia, because if that one goes, ain't nobody gonna be driving to work anytime soon after!
Finally if you think I'm spouting a load of rubbish, I'll ask you one final question. Why does the US administration want Julian Assange either silenced, or dead?
Plus, he threatened that "when" he will win the civil war he will attack Italy, because his thinks that the revolt is a huge Italian conspiracy.
This is hilarious, because the Italian administration (or rather Berlusconi) has been criticised for doing the same thing as Obama, for the same reason. The European states have even greater a vested interest in keeping quiet on this matter since Gaddafi's not just a nutjob but also their geographical neighbor... threats to wage war without provocation being a case in point.
I find it annoying how the western world, (and especcialy the US) always starts to interfere if something happens in another country.
and that is not the way it should be. they can make decisions for their own.
plus: it is not always going to turn out well. think of vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, iran.
they are not going to listen to us, for we supported the dictators. maybe they are going to do the exact opposite. in the best case, they are just not going to listen.
one thing the whole western world didn't interfere: the fall of the berlin wall. it just happened, it happened because the time was come. imagine what would have happened if the US, (or england, or france, or the BRD) had been there with military?
Isn't a part of the oil platforms in the hands of the oppositionists? I think they control one of the port towns, among others.
I just wonder if the oppositionists will be able to instore a stable new political structure; Libya is a delicate case since it is structured in tribes who up to lately supported the Ghaddafi clan, and will probably not let an occasion slip away to take advantage and seize control if they can.
Ghaddafi is a lunatic and must be stopped. There's no reason why we should sit here and allow a madman to kill hundreds of innocent civilians. I say we take him out.
People, especially in Benghazi, are already planning attacks on Tripolis, as I've heard on the news. These innocent civilians are quite able to take care of themselves, and I'm not sure if the presence of american soldiers there would really be beneficial.
Hopefully the people will be able to take out Ghaddafi without America's help, but I don't think the civilians alone will be able to take on Ghaddafi. If we were to get involved, I think we should bomb where Ghaddafi is and just take him out there and then.
I feel bad for people who live in countries like Iran and Libya. Both countries are run by lunatics, and the rest of the world is doing nothing about the two leaders.
I guess many will be killed, especially if they try to attack the Ghaddafi clans fortified agglomeration southwest of Tripolis. But you know that there are not only civilians; some parts of the army already joined the oppositionists side and will surely help them.
Gaddafi is bombing his own capital and several fires have begun in the city; this is a much more violent approach to the protests than Mubarak.
I have no clue where this is going, but I can give you a couple of worst case scenarios:
As a member of OPEC, Libya has oil reserves that we need. Political unrest in the nation is problematic for the US since we need their oil. This causes the price of oil to go up. An oil shortage might occur again like in the late 1970s.
Now, if we send troops to stop Gaddafi, we wage war against him for oil. Another oil war.
If we help Gaddafi put down the revolt, then we make enemies with those who tried to help Libyans, like the UK.
Hopefully, none of these happen and Gaddafi gives up quickly, but I just don't see that happening.
