Air strike launched amid talk of Libyan peace plan

[maddezmom]

Source: ABC news

Air strike launched amid talk of Libyan peace plan
Updated 38 minutes ago


The Libyan leader's army is facing an increasingly organised and confident rebel force. (AFP : Patrick Baz )

A fresh air strike has been launched on the opposition-held Libyan town of Brega a day after clashes between rebels and pro-regime fighters killed at least 12 people.

The latest attacks come amid reports that Moamar Gaddafi and the president of the Arab League are considering a plan that would allow an international peacekeeping mission to mediate the crisis.

The plan, put forward by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East trying to reach a negotiated outcome between Mr Gaddafi and rebel forces.

Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa denied reports that he and Mr Gaddafi had agreed to the proposal.



Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/03/3154574.htm?section=world

---

Venezuela's proposal on Libya unclear, says Arab League


A proposal by Venezuela's president to solve the current crisis in Libya does not include a clear plan, Hisham Youssef, assistant Arab League secretary, said on Thursday.

On 17 February, a popular uprising erupted In Libya against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi, who has been in power for 42 years. Thousands of protesters have been reported dead during the clashes with pro-Qhadafi forces.

President Hugo Chavez had suggested an international mediation delegation of representatives from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East be sent to Libya in a bid to hash out a peaceful resolution through negotiations between protesters and Qadhafi's regime.

Youssef said Venezuela's foreign minister phoned Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa to introduce Chavez's proposal and that Moussa described the ideas as vague.

more:http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/337568

[maddezmom]

1. Witnesses: Libyan towns bombed; govt. slams plan to probe war crimes

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Two towns in eastern Libyan were bombed Thursday, witnesses said, despite the government's accusations hours earlier that reports of attacks on protesters and military facilities are false.

Two bombs were dropped on military camps in Ajdabiya, a tribal leader said. Another bomb fell in al-Brega between the oil facility and the airport, but there were no injuries or damage, witnesses said.

The government spokesman said that assertions of military attacks on demonstrators are wrong.

"We need tribal intervention, social intervention to help us convince these people to come to the negotiating table," Musa Ibrahim told CNN's "AC360."

more:http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/03/libya.conflict/

[robcon]

2. The "peace plan" is a joke. Gaddafi's not going to give up.

He'll "save" Libya even if he has to kill 100,000 Libyans to do it.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Libya is not Egypt. Libya is in a civil war, army faction against army faction.

How to stop the bloodshed? The pro-Gaddafi faction of the military isn't going to surrender. And it's hard to think of anything worse than ANOTHER U.S. invasion and occupation of an Islamic country.

So, LUCKILY, the smart-as-a-fox President of Venezuela, who refrained from condemning Gaddafi, may be able to get Gaddafi and his military faction to the negotiating table.

The rightwingers who, of course, jumped all over Chavez like they always do--taking every opportunity to demonize Chavez--utterly fail to see the world as it is. In the world as it is, Chavez, Lula da Silva and other Latin American leftist leaders have devised a Latin American policy aimed at world peace. One evidence of this common policy was BOTH Lula da Silva and Chavez inviting Iran's president, Ahmedinejad, to their countries, and Lula traveling to Turkey and Iran, to try to remove Iran from the U.S. hit list (with a deal about Iran's fissionable material). Does this mean that Lula or Chavez approve of shooting protestors or oppressing women? No, it does not. It means that they want world peace, and feel that world peace is necessary to Latin America's DEMOCRATIC progress and prosperity. Chavez's befriending of Gaddafi, just like Lula's befriending of Ahmedinejad, were/are efforts to achieve 'third world' solidarity across the Global South, in the interest of their own countries and region.

Because I respect facts and know for a fact that Chavez is NOT a dictator, I was able to call this Chavez peace effort about 48 hours ago--and got ridiculed and guffawed at, by the usual RW suspects here at DU. They want everyone to believe that Chavez LIKES dictators, and that's why he befriended Gaddafi, cuz Chavez and Gaddafi are the same, don't ya know? Both heinous dictators killing their people, and if Chavez ain't doin' it yet, he WILL, cuz he LIKES dictators and dictating and killing. Blah, blah, blah.

Jeez. I couldn't believe the stupidity of it.

So, we'll see how determined the U.S./NATO are to invade Libya--or whether Chavez's peace proposal prevails. To tell you the truth, I'm afraid that our war machine is too greedy for oil and its profits, too anxious to have something MORE to do, to rake in the war profiteer contracts, and our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers are too bent on world domination, for them to show any restraint. I also fear that they infiltrated and pushed this rebellion in Libya, prematurely, in order to create the mayhem that would justify an invasion. But I am hoping against hope that the result is NOT the U.S./NATO killing more Libyans and trying to occupy and control yet another divided and rebellious country. I am hoping, not very hopefully, that diplomacy succeeds--for the sake of Libyans, to stop this civil war, and for all our sakes, to restore diplomacy and peace as the objectives of all good leaders, our own and others.

[EFerrari]

4. We don't really do diplomacy any more.

We threaten, buy and bomb, that's about it.

I've been hoping the Arab League would step up but it may be, with the rolling protests, they can't do it at the moment.

[TheWraith]

5. Not everything is a giant conspiracy of war propaganda.

Nobody is invading Libya.

Nobody made up the fact that Chavez is an ally of Gaddafi.

Nobody asked Chavez to try and broker a deal to keep Gaddafi in power.

Nobody asked for anything except for Gaddafi to leave. Now. There's no other acceptable solution.

[Peace Patriot]

6. You are ignoring the fact that a good portion of the Libyan military has sided with Gaddafi.

There is no unity in Libya as there was, finally, in Egypt. And that is the problem. This is an armed conflict--a civil war. Luckily, there is a chance at an armistice--stoppage of warfare by the two military factions--because of a Latin American regional policy, developed among Chavez, Lula da Silva and other leaders, to reach out to Global South countries (as Lula da Silva and Chavez both did, for instance, to Iran, by inviting Ahmedinejad to Brazil and Venezuela, and Lula's trip to Iran and Turkey for the Iran fissionable materials deal). Thus, Chavez befriended Gaddafi and can possibly bring about an armistice, Gaddafi's retirement and a peaceful transition to a democratic government whereby Libya retains its sovereignty and its control of its oil. The worst possible scenario would be a U.S./NATO invasion, and the U.S. ending up killing Libyans (the military loyal to Gaddafi will most certainly fight back) and forcibly trying to control and occupy yet another divided, rebellious Islamic country. That may happen anyway but it is well worth a try to get a peaceful solution.

------

You wrote: "Not everything is a giant conspiracy of war propaganda."

Yeah, but almost everything to do with our war machine and oil is. Where you been this last decade?

You wrote: "Nobody is invading Libya."

The Pentagon and NATO are planning it, as we speak. The only question is, can a peace initiative head it off? They will NOT let this major oil supplier descend into civil war chaos.

You wrote: "Nobody asked Chavez to try and broker a deal to keep Gaddafi in power."

How do you know who asked what of Chavez? He is one of the few leaders who did not condemn Gaddafi, and thus is one of the few leaders who could propose a peace negotiation. Many different parties could have asked him to do this--including Italy, England, any number of Arab countries, any number of OPEC countries, any number of African countries, even the U.S. (if Obama wants to avoid invading/occupying another Islamic country). But even if they didn't, what's wrong with trying to bring this civil war to a peaceful end? And, believe me, no peace powow is going to end with Gaddafi still in power. Ain't gonna happen. The purpose will be to remove him so that the big faction of the military that supports him can stop fighting and the country can pull together to plan its future.

Libya is NOT Egypt. This is situation is very different. You sound like you just don't want to give Chavez any credit. Well, let me ask you this? Can the U.S. bear another war? Because the Libyan military siding with Gaddafi is NOT going to stop fighting if the U.S. invades. In fact, that will give them all the more incentive to fight on--whatever happens to Gaddafi, just like thousands of Iraqis kept fighting, though Saddam had been toppled. They believe they are fighting for Libya's independence. So, the U.S. isn't just going to walk in and everything stops. They are going to walk into the middle of a civil war--our THIRD unnecessary war in less than a decade!

You are not thinking. You're just pouting, cuz you don't like Chavez. How does this END, hm? Or rather, how does it end with the least carnage and most hope for Libyan democracy and sovereignty? How does it BEST end?

[TheWraith]

7. I don't approve of anyone attempting to keep a dictator in power.

You're trying to spin an elaborate fiction about how the US is about to charge in and invade the country, which is crap. The only thing going on here is that Chavez is trying to save Gaddafi's ass, and no, I don't approve of that. Nor do I approve of the fact that when the US has any level of support for a dictator, it's viewed as the epitome of evil, but when Chavez is doing it, suddenly all the critics are breaking their backs trying to excuse it and show how he's really the noble prince of peace fighting evil capitalist imperialism.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Truth2Tell]

9. I know I've said it before PP, but

:yourock:

[Catherina]

11. Your posts rock but I have 2 quick comments

1. This isn't a civil war though that's what Gaddafi and the West want it to become. They keep throwing those words about and that's precisely the exaggeration that Chavez is talking about.

2. A good portion of the military isn't behind Gaddafi. If it were, he wouldn't have needed to import 30,000 mercenaries and still be importing more.

From day 1 high level Commanders defected to the revolutionaries' side. One one base alone, one of Gaddafi's last remaining Generals, Sunessi, who as of 2 days ago is no longer with Gaddafi, had to personally supervise the execution of over 200 military members were executed, hands tied behind their backs, for refusing orders and more bodies are discovered everyday as the revolutionaries capture military bases. Here's just one of the videos and I warn you it's graphic. Qaddafi only has 5000 of the 45,000 military force behind him and that's the Khamis Bde. He lost one of the last non-Khamis Bns this morning when the Commander immediately defected to the Revolutionaries side when the battle started and the rest followed. The Army isn't going to shoot on its own people. Only the Khamis Bde which is part of Gaddafi's loyal inner circle (and world) has the stomach for that.

Unfortunately the Army has few weapons because Gaddafi never trusted them and basically just gave them uniforms.

Other than those two comments, I fully agree with your posts and thank you for them.

To support you, let's look at the people leading the attacks against Chavez

-JOEL HIRST, FELLOW, U.S.-BASED COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

"Gaddafi is an ideological friend and ally who has stood with Chavez in difficult times and now Chavez is reciprocating. It is unclear whether the Arab League or the U.N. will agree given his clear bias in favor of Gaddafi. If Chavez can spin this that he is a powerful figure astride the world stage who can solve international problems while propping up an ally who he is really worried will be overthrown, it will help Chavez with anti-American countries who like to see America lose. It won't help him domestically."

-SAMUEL CISZUK, Middle East Analyst, IHS Energy, London:

"I don't think that another relatively extreme leader who is an ally to Gaddafi has a chance to be accepted as a peace-broker. It's very unlikely to work."

"It has become likely that Libyan fighting will affect, and potentially destroy, oil infrastructure serving the country's largest, central basin, which is right on the fault line between Gaddafi loyalists and rebels."

"The violence and bomb strikes could hit export terminals, and might extend to upstream infrastructure and pipelines. I think that the risk of Libyan oil exports remaining affected for a long period are already being priced into oil."

-OLIVIER JAKOB, Swiss-based research firm Petromatrix:

"Prices have weakened on the news, or the rumor, that Gaddafi could accept a proposal made by Chavez for mediation. Chavez' credibility does not fly very high; the only value of such a proposal is if it offers some honorable way out for the Gaddafi clan. The only value is if it offers a face-saving way out to exile."

-CHRISTOPHE BARRET, analyst, Credit Agricole CIB, London:

"Whatever comes of it, the plan looks very vague and I don't think it will be seriously considered. An earlier press report indicated the Arab League 'accepted' the plan, but we now see that isn't the case."

"The possibility of very lengthy conflict in Libya has increased. What is most worrisome today is how close to the country's oil installations the violence has come. Exports from Libya could be wiped out."

-CARSTEN FRITSCH, Analyst at Commerzbank in Frankfurt:

"There is probably no chance that rebels would be willing to sit down at a negotiating table with Gaddafi now. It's highly unlikely a Chavez peace proposal could work."

"Government forces are attacking the oil city of Brega, and this city is at the center of the conflict. According to state oil company NOC, Libya's oil infrastructure hasn't been damaged yet. But the risk of damage is increasing, and that could make it harder for Libya to resume oil supplies any time soon."

Reuters culled those quotes

The minute it was known Chavez wanted to lead an international peace initiative, oil prices dropped. The people above and the arms industry must have been sputtering mad because they've been rubbing their hands with glee that oil could soon reach $300 a barrel.

Lula da Silva is supposed to lead the effort

Latin America, that knows exactly how insincere the US is when it talks about democracy is backing Chavez' plan, to include Peru, the first American country to condemn Chavez while the West was still waffling.

Two others Chavez wants to participate in this international initiative this initiative are former President Jimmy Carter and Jennifer McCoy (of the Carter Center) who both have
experience in mediating difficult political situations.


"We will make contact with many people around the world, we can not sit idly by" - Hugo Chavez

Fancy that. A non belligerent response seeking to end this savage bloodshed without turning a massive, popular uprising into civil war because civil war is what this will become the minute foreign soldiers, cough, advisors step foot on Libyan soil. The weapons and oil industries are hopping mad. And the usual suspects rush to defend & protect their prowar solutions.

Libya deserves better than "to be turned into a semi-colony, ruled by the United States and its fellow predators from Western Europe, who will seize control of the oil reserves and transform the country’s territory into a strategic base of operations against the mass uprisings now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa." (1)

More people have been savagely killed, with US support, in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, Colombia. There's a brutal crackdown against protesters going on in Iraq right now. People have been killed, the press shot at and imprisoned yet we don't hear any concern about that. People who are suddenly so concerned about stopping bloodshed can start right there since it's happening with the support of this administration during their continued occupation of Iraq.

:yourock:

[joshcryer]

16. One thing about Gaddafi, he was "smart" bombing the three munitions depots. He'd be gone...

...by now if he didn't do that. I bet it was a contingency plan that he's had in the making for many years now. "If my tribes don't behave, I will disarm them instantly." These are people who have been using small arms for the vast majority of the battle, many of which were simply taken from those they captured or killed. It is truly a revolutionary uprising.

[snot]

22. +1000!

[joshcryer]

15. Patently dishonest, "a good portion" of the military has in fact not sided with Gaddafi.

Numbers wise it's simply not true. If it were true Gaddafi would not have had to hire tens of thousands of mercenaries to do his dirty work. It has been explained over and over to you that there is nothing that Gaddafi needs to negotiate except for his staying in power, simple as that.

[joshcryer]

14. No, by all accounts Gaddafi has 80% mercenary forces. Only a few tribes are loyal to him now.

In fact just yesterday two more very large tribes (with their own militaries) are against him. What you are neglecting to mention is that Gaddafi summarily bombed three of the biggest munitions depots in the east, rendering the east without capability to win against him. If he had not done that it'd probably be over long before now. But in truth he only bought himself some time.

The fact that you're trying to spread this dishonest meme that Gaddafi has a large military force is telling, it tells me that you really aren't siding with the revolutionaries. There is no chance for armistace because Gaddafi is in the minority, Gaddafi killed and continues to kill his own people, and Chavez is "unconvinced" that Gaddafi even killed them. The "peace process" has nothing to do with ending battle, it has everything to do with ending the revolution.

[joshcryer]

13. Patently false, it is an uprising, with army faction (rebels) against mercenary faction.

Your post shows a complete disconnect from reality. As Gaddafi's side claims they want to "broker peace" they are, at the same time, bombing the shit out of and killing rebels who want him gone. What you are assuming is that this conflict will last so long as to require NATO intervention, and you actually appear to want that, because it would "prove" that "all along" the "west wanted to invade." Oh no, it can't be because the death toll will be in the tens of thousands by that point (and of course there will be people chastising NATO and the west for not intervening sooner, it's your typical no-win situation from the side of the haters).

So far the west has been watching closely and leaving it to the Libyans because far be it for them to delegitimize their revolution by intervening, even with a no-fly-zone. That is really the worst outcome, to have a revolution that has NATO involvement, everyone, including you, would completely ignore the month or so of fighting that the Libyans had to undertake to get to that point. In fact, that's what these discussions are really all about. They are completely dismissive of the revolutionaries, they are insulting on grounds of "peace."

[joshcryer]

18. BTW, how do to negotiate with a madman? The residents of Az Zawiyah are being massacred today.

All because they repelled military intervention into their city and sided with the revolutionaries.

[boppers]

10. The peace plan is simple: Dictator loses power.

Chavez and Ghadaffi can't seem to wrap their heads around that.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Nothing is simple about the Libyan situation including trying to pull off an armistice and

negotiation.

You really need to get the Egypt template out of your head. WHO is going to remove Gaddifi? Just answer me that. In Egypt, the military rather quickly sided with the protestors and disempowered Mubarak. Although Libyan military have defected to the protestors, a large faction of the military did not, and they are fighting it out. It is an armed conflict--a civil war. Furthermore, western powers armed both sides, and, until recently, were supporting Gaddafi and have huge stakes in Libya's oil. Also, Gaddafi has a long history of supporting and advocating African independence and "third world" solidarity (until he made his deals with the west). So many of those loyal to him believe that they are fighting for their independence against rebels who are loyal to the western powers. This may not be true, on the whole (although I'm sure there are plenty of U.S., Brit and European infiltators on the rebel side) but that is what they believe and that is why they have not abandoned Gaddafi. (He really is more of an independence ikon than Mubarark was.) And, on top of all this, there are complex tribal loyalties involved in Libya.

This simplistic statement--"Dictator loses power"--is a militaristic shibboleth. What you really mean is more killing on both sides of this civil war and possibly including a U.S./NATO invasion (more killing) and occupation (more killing) and more than likely a continued, long term conflict (with anti-occupation forces within Libya fighting U.S./NATOR invaders). That is what people need to "wrap their heads around." What is the SOLUTION?

Well, Chavez has proposed one. So, what do YOU say? How do you IMPLEMENT "Dictator loses power"?

[joshcryer]

17. Please stop spreading this dishonesty. A "large faction of the military" did not side with Gaddafi.

The numbers are simple. The entire arm forces of Libya were at 45 thousand. Of those 45 thousand 30 thousand defected from Gaddafi within the first week. At the same time Gaddafi was hiring mercenaries to fly in and do his fighting for him, at all accounts probably 30 thousand at the minimum (some numbers place it as high as 50 thousand). Yesterday two more tribes decided to side with the revolutionaries, which reduces Gaddafi's numbers again. His loyalist troops are closer to 10 thousand strong. So out of 45 thousand men Gaddafi has at most 10 thousand. This is by no means a "large faction of the military."

Dictator loses power is the only outcome here. If the peace process here in this thread was truly for peace, it would be the most important suggestion tabled. Implementing dictator loses power most effectively happens with a bullet to the head, but Gaddafi can leave at any time and allow peace to come to his former country.

[Peace Patriot]

19. 10,000 is not a "large faction" of 45,000 Libyan forces? It certainly is.

And it is also the best armed faction (armed by the western powers!).

I really don't think you understand this situation very well. The U.S., Brits and some European countries want to end up on the winning side. They don't care how many people Gaddafi's forces kill. That is why they have NOT called for an armistice and a peace negotiation. They are letting Libyans slaughter each other and looking for the right moment to intervene and BENEFIT FROM the slaughter. They don't give a goddam about "revolutionaries," democracy in Libya or peoples' lives in Libya. Their ONLY concern is that the oil keep flowing to the maximum possible profit of western money powers.

Chavez has NOTHING TO GAIN from proposing an armistice and negotiation. In fact, Venezuela has much to gain from continued civil war in Libya. It is driving the price of oil through the roof. That benefits Venezuela monetarily but it immoral to foment war for that purpose and world peace is the CLEAR policy of Chavez, Lula da Silva and other Latin American leaders, because they are peaceful and moral leaders and because world peace is necessary for Latin America's democratic progress and long term economic development.

It is our own country and its allies who are immoral in this situation. They had allied with Gaddafi because Gaddafi kept the oil flowing. They didn't give a frak what kind of government he was running. They armed him and his sultan-like tribe and government and they are sitting back DOING NOTHING to stop this. They see BENEFIT in it! That is the difference between them and Chavez and his Latin American allies, who see NO BENEFIT in people killing each other.

You naively think that the U.S. and its allies are the "good guys" and you are desperately trying to couple Chavez with Gaddafi as "the bad guys." That is a cowboy movie, not reality. Chavez, who befriended Gaddafi like the western powers did but for different reasons (--it's no benefit to Chavez/Venezuela to keep Libya's oil flowing at any cost) is trying to stop the slaughter. And what are the utterly hypocritical U.S. and its allies doing to stop this battle? NOTHING! They are sitting like vultures at the edge of this pile of carnage, mouthing utterly hypocritical condemnations of Gaddafi, with beaks and talons ready to rip Libya to shreds in the aftermath.

THAT is reality. Look what they did to Iraq! Look what they're doing to Afghanistan! Democracy, the "will of the people," the welfare of Libyans is the last thing in the world they want.

Gaddafi has to go. True. What he is doing is horrible. True. But YOUR "solution" is typical "cowboy" movie stuff, and I quote...

--

"Dictator loses power is the only outcome here. If the peace process here in this thread was truly for peace, it would be the most important suggestion tabled. Implementing dictator loses power most effectively happens with a bullet to the head, but Gaddafi can leave at any time and allow peace to come to his former country."

--

That's your solution to Libya's civil war? Gaddafi gets "a bullet to the head"? Well, that may happen but it ain't no solution, because somebody else will arise amidst the bloodshed and carnage to take up his "flag" and "avenge" the "traitors" and the rebel forces will fight back to "avenge" the horrors they have suffered, and on and on and on...until somebody SANE gets them to the bargaining table!

The U.S. and western allies FOMENT war in "global south" counties to benefit from it. They have NO INTEREST in a good outcome for the people who live there. When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, the west armed both sides! They WANTED these peoples to slaughter each other. They have used tactics of exploiting internal divisions and fomenting violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia and Honduras, recently, and in many other countries historically. Violence, internal divisions, tribal warfare, pitting one against another, benefits the exploitative money powers of the western countries. And there is another cowardly, conniving, hypocritical force in this situation, and that is Saudi Arabia and the other oil sheiks. None of these moneyed forces want a good outcome in Libya. They most certainly don't want democracy in Libya. None of them cares who "wins" as long as it is profitable to themselves.

Latin American leaders, on the other hand, are committed to PEACE and are demonstrably, provably committed to DEMOCRACY. They are in power through democratic means, and they see world peace as the basic condition needed for furthering democracy and achieving economic progress and social justice in their region. Lula da Silva, the just retired president of Brazil, said, of Hugo Chavez, "They can invent all sorts of things to criticize Chavez but not on democracy!". And he also called Chavez 'the great peacemaker" (in the context of the U.S./Colombia attack on Ecuador; and Chavez has never done anything other than make peace, throughout his tenure). Lula also said, in his last speech as president, that "The U.S. has not changed." Bear this in mind, as to Libya. Latin American leaders have a COMMON policy of promoting peace in the world and allying with countries across the "global south" against the aggression and exploitation of the U.S. and its allies and their multinational corporate monsters and war profiteers. Chavez's peace proposal for Libya is a product of this COMMON Latin American policy.

It is a mistake to view this situation--Libya-- with corporate war propaganda ringing in your ears. What Gaddafi and his faction of the military are doing is horrible, yes. But who put the bombs in their hands? Hm? Who put guns in their hands? Who has profited from his rule?

If I were in Libya, I would probably feel obliged to fight back--to shoot and kill. Gandhian though I am. I have a fighting spirit that could probably not stand by and watch innocents being slaughtered without taking up arms. But it is a terrible tragedy when that occurs. Because blood wants blood. The revenge cycle is neverending. And war machines like ours are ever exploiting that fighting spirit in human beings in a cold-blooded quest for domination and profit.

Civil war is a TRAGEDY, no matter who is "right." And war of country against country is the biggest tragedy of all, no matter who is "right." That is why war should always and ever be considered the very, very, VERY LAST resort. Every other means of resolving conflicts must be given EVERY chance to work, to prevent war and to stop war once it begins. Once war begins, no matter who started it, atrocities occur on both sides, and one side will paint the other as "heinous" in order to motivate soldiers to KILL more human beings and in order to silence those who want peace. Your solution for Libya--"a bullet to Gaddifi's head"-- is just such a primitive response--that one more death will solve it. One more death will NOT solve it. The division in Libya must be healed. That is the problem--not one old, decrepit, corrupt dictator who's gone off his meds. HOW is Libya to be HEALED? HOW is all this death first of all to be stopped and second of all to be HEALED--not avenged, healed, so that Libya CAN achieve a good government in the future?

People who speak of "a bullet to the head" are not thinking. Say, the rebels win. Say, they then line up the ten thousand soldiers who support Gaddafi and shoot them all dead. Is THAT a good solution? No, it is not. Blood wants more blood. Where does it end? Do they then line up all the civilians who supported Gaddafi and shoot them, too? What about their children? Might they not grow up to avenge the murders of their parents?

Where does it stop? HOW do you stop it? HOW do you create peace? You are refusing to deal with that difficult question.

[joshcryer]

20. No one else has called for an armistice and a peace negotiation because there is no chance.

Gaddafi, after agreeing to a peace negotiation slaughtered hundreds. So please spare me the untruths. Gaddafi is a madman, plain and simple, the "peace negotiations" are being used as a distraction from the bigger picture. The rebels want Gaddafi gone, they do not want "peace negotiations" they do not want "reforms."

The rebels have already agreed to a no-reprisal scenario. While Gaddafi slaughters hundreds who refuse to shoot on protesters, the protesters capture pro-Gaddafi forces and treat them well. There's a reason pro-Gaddafi forces are changing sides. They are seeing the revolutionaries for what they are, people uprising against a tyrant.

It is up to the rebels to decide how their country is going to move past the ousting of Gaddafi (either with a bullet or with a plane to a country that is friendly to him and will not extradite; he will not leave any other way), not the "peace commission" that was formed on the basis that Chavez was "unconvinced" that people were being slaughtered.

BTW, I find it cute that you are now chastising the west for "not caring how many people Gaddafi kills," and what exactly should they do to prove that they care? :rofl: I'm also finding it hilarious that people are chatizing the west for taking the same position as Chavez to quell the violence in other Arab countries.

"Don't fight let's talk it over."

Nope, too fucking late for that. LIBYA HURRA.

(And again, I would appreciate it if anti Libyan revolutionaries would stop posting rhetoric about how they are going to let the west control them; they fought the murdering madman Gaddafi, the west is nothing compared to Gaddafi.)

[Peace Patriot]

21. I hope you are right--and that it ends quickly--but I don't think you are right.

Libya is a much more complex and difficult event than Egypt was (and even in that rebellion about 300 were killed). And I think that it is never, ever, ever worthless to try to end killing and get people to talk. What you've said, above, feels like the cheerleading at a football game. I don't think you understand what armed conflict means. It is not a thing that I would wish on anybody. It taints the future. And revenge and retribution will be its names.

You wrote: "I'm also finding it hilarious that people are chatizing the west for taking the same position as Chavez to quell the violence in other Arab countries."

Nothing about this is "hilarious." This horror in Libya seems to be a spectator sport, to you. That's how your post comes across. You want "victory" for the "good guys." You want Gaddafi to get a bullet in the head and those supporting him smashed by the "rebels." This is a distant thing to you, that you can laugh and cheer. But it is not a sport. In truth it is a tragedy of death and mayhem, no matter which side is "right" and no matter which side "wins." It is simply dreadful that a genuine desire for good government came to this. This is NOT the neat and tidy situation that you seem to think it is. There are good guys and bad buys on both sides, and, believe me, the bad guys on the rebel side are taking advantage of the chaos to position themselves to be future Gaddafis. It will be a miracle if good government--let alone democratic government--results from all this carnage.

You think talk is useless. Just "shoot 'em up," huh? Have you ever lost anyone to a bullet? Maybe you have. But the way you post, it sounds like you haven't. I've never been in war but I've seen a lot of wars occur in my lifetime, perpetrated by my own government, against my will and the will of most Americans. And I've lost someone to a bullet. It is horrible to lose someone that way. And I think that the puller of every murderous trigger thinks he is right and justified in taking another's life. Weapons blind people to what they are really doing. The rebels are no different than anyone else holding that easy, instant power over life and death.

My feeling is that they may have blown their revolution--or infiltrators among them have blown it--by instigating it prematurely. This certainly does not exonerate Gaddafi and his forces for what they have done. But it is simply the stark reality that if you lead a people to rebel, and you have miscalculated (or are oblivious to) the violent power against them, any victory in carnage that you achieve will poison the future. Blood seeks more bloods. The French Revolution is the classic example of it. And it has occurred in virtually every war and armed revolt in the modern era. The cost in carnage poisons the future. It happened in Russia. It happened in China. It happened in Cuba (except that Cuba has managed to evolve). It happened in Vietnam. Armed revolt is dreadful, no matter how justified the rebels may be. It poisons the very thing people are dreaming about as good government and fairness and justice. And it is almost impossible to counter that poison in a society.

And look at our own society, which triumphed in WW II but created a great war machine which has done nothing but evil ever since. Violence is not easily contained, once it has been let loose. That is why laughing and cheering about people who have been armed by the west--by our own war profiteers--slaughtering each other, is so inappropriate. It is a tragedy, whoever "wins" and it will take Libya a century to recover from it, if they ever do. Violence begets violence. That is the lesson of modern history. When will we ever learn?

I find it quite horrible that our government has not tried to bring these parties to the negotiating table but I have ceased to expect our government to do the right thing. And I'm grateful that somebody is trying to--even if he stands all alone in the world.

[Snoutport]

23. Around here we call that a "scott walker"... pretend to talk then slam them.