|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on May 2, 2011 14:53:41 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by gachquota on May 2, 2011 18:22:32 GMT 3
Thanks OO nice piece let me internalise it but this iz a real eye opener.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 2, 2011 18:23:55 GMT 3
This piece was not coherent, its poorly written with a few typos here and there.
Ambassador Winser did not go to Egypt to tell Mubarak to hang on. Quite the opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by gachquota on May 2, 2011 18:26:30 GMT 3
This piece was not coherent, its poorly written with a few typos here and there. Ambassador Winser did not go to Egypt to tell Mubarak to hang on. Quite the opposite. Forget abt da typos ...get da message pm. |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on May 2, 2011 19:02:58 GMT 3
Great piece. This goes a long way into answering some of the questions hanging out there. Even Americans and some Europeans have asked these questions; why Libya and not say Yemen or Syria? Anyone who has followed the dealings of the west with the Arab world and other third world countries will readily tell you that, the Libyan move was a very selfish move on the part of the French. Going forward, however, the whole scenario is getting complicated every single passing day.
|
|
|
|
Post by job on May 2, 2011 19:51:08 GMT 3
The point is - Gadhaffi will go. NATO will give time for the effects of the asset freeze to start crippling Gadhaffi's expensive military survival operations. Meanwhile they will buy loyalists and divide his military pole pole...before finally pouncing on the big kahuna. Right now, they are using the lull in fighting intensity to cobble a replacement regime they can bank on. Same formula that was effected to oust Gbagbo.
Coming to the fundamental point, while I concurr with some things the Canadian has raised in the article (riddled with some factual errors as politicalmaniac has already noted), my position is that Africa should not swap servitude from one imperialist (West) to yet another imperialist (Gadhaffi or the Chinese).
Gadhaffi's United States of Africa project was the biggest fairy tale ever sold to ignorant African tribal chiefs.
His was nothing but sheer imperialist ambition, to drive out the West and swap place as the new controller (exploiter) of vast African resources. There are no ifs, ands or buts, that was Gadhafi's game...he already had many African Presidents in his pocket and using them to cheaply acquire those countries' respective assets (eg Grand Regency and Oil infrastructure {refinery, pipeline, oil marketing/distribution share} in Kenya). This was replicated in more than 25 African countries.
To enforce these imperial interests, Gadhafi was interferring with the democratic (voting)rights of Africans. He sponsored electoral frauds to impose his lackeys as Presidents, and even sponsored the overthrowing of governments that didn't side with him. Its all documented. His end game was to become the biggest exploiter of African resources. It's a case of Gadhaffi preaching water (anti-imperialism) but drinking wine (imperialism).
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 2, 2011 20:07:51 GMT 3
The war by the Western Powers against Gaddaffi seems like one of unilateral attrition, with the Libyan side the only one getting experiencing death and strife.
But its slowly gonna wear out Gaddafi and then just as folks will be giving up, - kaboom! He is dead or ousted.
Good riddance it will be as Job states above, for this guy is not a true friend, but a master manipulator, out for his own economic and political gain
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 2, 2011 21:34:48 GMT 3
Hindsight is 20/20. With its benefit we now know that the international community could have subverted a catastrophe in Rwanda had there been an appropriate intervention before the 1994 genocide. If such an intervention had occurred and succeeded however, any logic that is now embraced for depicting the Libyan intervention in bad faith would equally have been embraced. We may never know what this intervention has avoided, but if we honestly dissect the events leading to the intervention we will agree it happened because it was necessary!
The intervention is complicated - no doubt. Before that intervention was launched however, there was hardly any disagreement with the call to do something to stop Gaddafi "or else". Now, armed with what has unfolded since the intervention began, some can pretend to have been opposed and even to have known what Gaddafi could or could not do to his people.
Yes, the situation is even more complicated by the events in Syria and Yemen. However, in my view, the question should be "what to do for the situations in Syria and Yemen," and not about giving credence to claims like ". . . President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya." The call to an intervention was popular by the time of the intervention. McCain, who might have been expected to oppose Obama on the matter if indeed there were opposing views, is consistently of the mind that US needs to be even more engaged at the front line rather than as a follower of NATO.
|
|
|
|
Post by einstein on May 2, 2011 23:02:42 GMT 3
Hindsight is 20/20. With its benefit we now know that the international community could have subverted a catastrophe in Rwanda had there been an appropriate intervention before the 1994 genocide. If such an intervention had occurred and succeeded however, any logic that is now embraced for depicting the Libyan intervention in bad faith would equally have been embraced. We may never know what this intervention has avoided, but if we honestly dissect the events leading to the intervention we will agree it happened because it was necessary! The intervention is complicated - no doubt. Before that intervention was launched however, there was hardly any disagreement with the call to do something to stop Gaddafi "or else". Now, armed with what has unfolded since the intervention began, some can pretend to have been opposed and even to have known what Gaddafi could or could not do to his people. Yes, the situation is even more complicated by the events in Syria and Yemen. However, in my view, the question should be "what to do for the situations in Syria and Yemen," and not about giving credence to claims like ". . . President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya." The call to an intervention was popular by the time of the intervention. McCain, who might have been expected to oppose Obama on the matter if indeed there were opposing views, is consistently of the mind that US needs to be even more engaged at the front line rather than as a follower of NATO. And that is the way I see it too ManK. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on May 3, 2011 9:23:19 GMT 3
Have you all been sucked into the western conspiracy? Why only Syria and Yemen? Why has the world (and our Jukwaa) forgotten the people of Bahrain??
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on May 3, 2011 10:52:19 GMT 3
Whether the article has factual errors, the argument that Gaddafi's being taken out for pushing for a new order in direct opposition to the petrodollar is sound. We are living in interesting times. A clash between the west & BRICS is in the making.
|
|
|
|
Post by nok on May 3, 2011 11:42:38 GMT 3
jukwaaI have a question! If the west had not intervened in Kenya 2008, where would we be ? Thanks in advance for the answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by nok on May 3, 2011 11:45:42 GMT 3
jukwaaI have a question! If the west had not intervened in Kenya 2008, where would we be ?Thanks in advance for the answers. I have another one just like the other one. Is Africa ( Kenya) better of with or without Gaddafi ( Gaddafi's influence) (AU; Liaco; Oil Libya) ? |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on May 3, 2011 12:47:10 GMT 3
jukwaaI have a question! If the west had not intervened in Kenya 2008, where would we be ? Thanks in advance for the answers. Nok, I would've backed the west 100% if they had dispatched marines & SAS to remove the incumbent from state house. Also, why didn't intervention take the KE route? Diplomacy & threats of action to follow? Double standards are the order of the day where the west is concerned. They only intervened in KE because we are a launching pad for their ops in East & Central Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on May 3, 2011 12:56:32 GMT 3
....& we are better off without Gaddafi's influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by nok on May 3, 2011 14:36:39 GMT 3
jukwaaI have a question! If the west had not intervened in Kenya 2008, where would we be ? Thanks in advance for the answers. Nok, I would've backed the west 100% if they had dispatched marines & SAS to remove the incumbent from state house. Also, why didn't intervention take the KE route? Diplomacy & threats of action to follow? Double standards are the order of the day where the west is concerned. They only intervened in KE because we are a launching pad for their ops in East & Central Africa. disregarding their motives it saved us eventually and temporarily from heading into the Somali / Congo way. So am glad they intervened. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on May 3, 2011 20:11:40 GMT 3
Have you all been sucked into the western conspiracy? Why only Syria and Yemen? Why has the world (and our Jukwaa) forgotten the people of Bahrain?? No Kamale, we've not all been sucked into western conspiracy. The key argument for americans who opposed intervention in Libya was that Libya is not of key importance to US economy or national security, and that any intervention would be on humanitarian grounds. Obama seemed to agree, but went on to prioritize the humanitarian course saying that he would not let what happened in Rwanda happen again under his watch. In such a decision he risked a lot of his presidency on added cost of war on the american back that is already bent into an arc by Iraq and Afghanistan. This does not fit with a western conspiracy claim. To ask whether there was bias in judgement, that Libya was capable of genocide while Bahrain, Syria or Yemen was not, would be a better argument than consipiracy. But even that would be difficult to argue. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on May 3, 2011 20:44:12 GMT 3
Oloo, Reading this article, I felt completely thrown back to the world of my boyhood. There was the EEC, the NAFTA, and the Warsaw Pact. And they were trading blocks. And there was lots of talk that there should also be an AFRICAN ECONOMIC UNION, as another step toward the Pan-Africanist ideal. Our teachers talked of imperialism and neo-colonialism as the rationale of the western concern in africa, and I remember Dr. Mahathir [premier of Malaysia then] wisely rejecting the IMF SAP medicine, which was rammed through the throats of many african countries. I think Kibaki was an architect of its implementation in Kenya. Then after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the so called end of the cold war, marked by a notorious essay by Francis Fukuyama [--The end of History], there seemed to be a general consensus that imperialism from the west too, had died. I personally conseder Gaddaffi better dead, but given that I knew about Libyan funding of RASCOM, WAD-bank, and the AU as more or less Gaddaffi's pets, I could not help thinking at least he was not wasting money like say Nguema, who is richer than Quwait, but his handful of citizens poorer than the poorest on earth. Obama's freezing of libyan assets is ofcourse an act of state robbery, but that is how great powers act in history. Maybe to help him fund his expensive wars inherited from Bush. But given the analysis of the canadian above [about the possible motives of western powers], what then are the options of the pan-africanist ideal, if it so still exists? I think it puts Africa in direct conlict with her former colonial masters! |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on May 4, 2011 6:54:07 GMT 3
Nok, I would've backed the west 100% if they had dispatched marines & SAS to remove the incumbent from state house. Also, why didn't intervention take the KE route? Diplomacy & threats of action to follow? Double standards are the order of the day where the west is concerned. They only intervened in KE because we are a launching pad for their ops in East & Central Africa. disregarding their motives it saved us eventually and temporarily from heading into the Somali / Congo way. So am glad they intervened. Nok so am I. That doesn't mean we have to not question their motivation to intervene. Someone somewhere is paying the price. Rwanda, KE PEV, Libya. 3 crises, 3 different reactions with the worst being ignored, ours getting a diplomatic approach, & the least urgent requiring a full military response. They act according to their national interests, not ours. We have to question why. |
|
|
|
Post by nok on May 4, 2011 8:15:49 GMT 3
b6kdisregarding their motives it saved us eventually and temporarily from heading into the Somali / Congo way. So am glad they intervened. Nok so am I. That doesn't mean we have to not question their motivation to intervene. Someone somewhere is paying the price. Rwanda, KE PEV, Libya. 3 crises, 3 different reactions with the worst being ignored, ours getting a diplomatic approach, & the least urgent requiring a full military response. They act according to their national interests, not ours. We have to question why. B6K I agree . Nonetherless at the end of it all, it's upto the Americans; West to decide for themselves where they want to involve themselves, we can't really influence that. Just like I can't influence where you put your priorities or not. If you or I feel like acting upon something it's the sole responsibility of each of us to decide depending on several factors. That's just the way it is. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on May 4, 2011 11:02:50 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by job on May 5, 2011 5:20:15 GMT 3
Press Release: 04.05.2011
The Office of the Prosecutor will request an arrest warrant against three individuals in the first Libya case. Judges will decide.
ICC-CPI-20110504-PR659
Today, (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo informed the United Nations Security Council that in a few weeks he will request the judges of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants against three individuals for crimes against humanity committed in Libya since 15 February 2011. In accordance with the evidence, they are the most responsible of the crimes committed. The judges can reject the request, accept it or ask for more evidence.
The situation in Libya was unanimously referred to the Prosecutor of the ICC by the United Nations Security Council under Resolution 1970 adopted on 26 of February 2011.
According to the evidence collected so far, “Crimes against humanity have been and continue to be committed in Libya, attacking unarmed civilians including killings and persecutions in many cities across Libya” said the Prosecutor.
Resolution 1970 affirmed that peace and security and the protection of civilians in Libya required justice. “Justice is on course today; however, if those who order the crimes are not stopped and arrested murder, persecution, systematic arrests, torture, killings, enforced disappearances and attacks against unarmed civilians will continue unabated” said the Prosecutor.
Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo called on States to prepare for arrests should judges decide to issue arrest warrants. “Now is the time to start planning on how to implement possible arrest warrants” said the Prosecutor.
In addition, the Office of the Prosecutor will continue investigations on different forms of persecution against civilians in Tripoli and other areas, as well as commissions of rape and the unlawful arrest, mistreatment and killings of sub-Saharan Africans wrongly perceived to be mercenaries.
The Office will also investigate the alleged commission of war crimes in Libya since the end of February, including the use of imprecise weaponry such as cluster munitions, multiple rocket launchers and mortars, and other forms of heavy weaponry, in crowded urban areas.
The International Criminal Court is an independent, permanent court that investigates and prosecutes persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes if national authorities with jurisdiction are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. The Office of the Prosecutor is currently investigating in six situations: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Northern Uganda, the Darfur region of Sudan, the Central African Republic, Kenya and Libya.
Link to Report
Link to Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information, please contact:
In New York
Ms. Florence Olara
OTP Public Information Officer
Florence.olara@icc-cpi.int
+31 (0)70 515 8723 (office)
+31 (0) 6 5029 4476 (mobile)
The Hague
OTP News Desk
OTPNewsDesk@icc-cpi.int
+31 (0)70 515 8945
Source: Office of the Prosecutor |
|
|
|
Post by commes on May 27, 2011 14:03:47 GMT 3
It appears that the game plan for Libya is set to go a notch higher. The US seems to have sanctioned a Libya without Col. Gadaffi Here is what was said: "meeting the UN mandate of civilian protection cannot be accomplished when Gaddafi remains in Libya, directing his forces in acts of aggression against the Libyan people".
"We are joined in resolve to finish the job."www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13572830 |
|
emali
Full Member
Posts: 219
|
Post by emali on May 27, 2011 14:47:46 GMT 3
US/Nato want to make an example of Gaddafi just like they did Gbagbo…the question is are these ‘rebels’ they are aiding that effective or as large? I doubt it, but if they want to save themselves the cost & the embarrassment of this campaign being drawn out for an extended period of time they should just take him out now with a bunker blaster or hitherto unknown sophisticated hologram bomb…
It’s quite obvious the reasons why they are after him…and it says a lot about the world today and America’s decline…30 years ago some CIA/Mossad operative would have laced Gaddafi’s drink with cyanide or successfully funded a counter revolution to overthrow him…Ultimately I still think they will have to get a ground force to uproot Gaddafi, I get the impression these ‘rebels’ are not very committed…
|
|
|
|
Post by commes on May 27, 2011 15:35:01 GMT 3
US/Nato want to make an example of Gaddafi just like they did Gbagbo…the question is are these ‘rebels’ they are aiding that effective or as large? I doubt it, but if they want to save themselves the cost & the embarrassment of this campaign being drawn out for an extended period of time they should just take him out now with a bunker blaster or hitherto unknown sophisticated hologram bomb… It’s quite obvious the reasons why they are after him…and it says a lot about the world today and America’s decline…30 years ago some CIA/Mossad operative would have laced Gaddafi’s drink with cyanide or successfully funded a counter revolution to overthrow him…Ultimately I still think they will have to get a ground force to uproot Gaddafi, I get the impression these ‘rebels’ are not very committed… You are right that no one wants a prolonged engagement in Libya. The stage has been set for a transitional government. Power abhors a vacuum. I read somewhere that the Rebels have opened up an office in the US and that the EU and others have set up in Bengazi. Following the success of the US operation in Pakistan with Helicopters I would not be surprised if we wake up to another Naval SEAL operation in Libya. Though the US will not wish to be directly linked. The deployment of Apache and Tiger/Gazelle attack Helicopters by the British and the French comes as a precursor. I doubt that ground Troops will be necessary to take out Gadaffi's regime. Where Col. Gadaffi hides is no secret. Obama intends to add another feather to his cap as the “World's number one Policeman who gets things done and achieves results. This is critical to his re-election bid and he is not going to make any mistakes on this one. |
|
