Libya troops advance east; powers want Gaddafi out

Comments (23)
SportsCar39 wrote:

I don’t understand what Russia is try to get across in their statement. Here is what they say above in the artical. “Russia criticized the Western intervention that has turned the tide in the conflict, saying it amounted to taking sides in a civil war and breached the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution”. Nato is trying to protect the rebels from getting massacred. Nato is destorying the Airplanes, Tanks, and heavy artillery. It comes down to Nato trying to make it a fair fight. All Russia is afraid of is that once the rebels make Gaddafi leave Libya or they remove him from prower, that Russia won’t be apart of the winning team an all that comes with saving Arab lives. It will get them good feeling among the Arab League.

Can someome tell me how Gaddafi is spelled. I spell it “Gaddafi”. I have also seem it spelled “Kad”dafy” Which is the correct spelling for the Libyan Tyrant.

Mar 28, 2011 11:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LarryinParker wrote:

@SportsCar39: Sorry about the meds comment the other day. I’ve seen his name spelled 3 or 4 different ways. The most common variation seems to be Kaddafi. I like Al KaDaffy myself. The Russians rate right down there with Kaddafi in my estimation but they make a point. Innocent civilians were protected about day three and a DMZ or free fire zone would have protected civilians from both factions. Providing close air support for the rebels and attacking Libya’s armor and troops all the way back to Surt was not part of Resolution 1973 and the UN Charter prohibits outsiders from from interfering in civil wars. If Obama and the coalition want KaDaffy gone, they could have done it easily enough and no one else in the world is strong enough to do anything about it.

Mar 29, 2011 1:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ayesee wrote:

Reuters and other media: why do you not quit giving credence to the murderer by quoting his propaganda statements and those of his “news” people? We all know what he is and what he stands for. Do you really think you are doing something good by quoting his lies?

Mar 29, 2011 9:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Redfeather wrote:

Do they realize those are uranium bombs?

Mar 29, 2011 9:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

LOL@redfeather, please post your source.

Mar 29, 2011 10:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Misrata, Libya’s third city,has been besieged by government forces for more than a month.
Is Misrata the Stalingrad of this war — with the winner eventually winning the war? The failure of the Germans to take the Stalingrad during WW2 was the turning point which resulted in their defeat.

Mar 29, 2011 11:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RBrittain wrote:

Utterly ridiculous situation. These rebels are not civilians. They are not peaceful protesters. They are armed, and firing weapons at Gaddafi’s troops. Hilary Clinton is a truly awful person to be suggesting such conspiracies.

Mar 29, 2011 12:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jet6330 wrote:

Let me spell the true reason for this confrontation out for you all:

OIL

France and Italy need it and they are not willing to pay a fair market price for it nor deal with a leader that they cannot see eye to eye with for it. There is no humanitarian crisis, if this was this case this is the last African country they should be looking at.

Some Economic Facts about Libya we all should know:
– Libya has the highest literacy rate in Africa.
– Libya has the lowest levels of poverty in Africa.
– Libya has one of the highest life expectancies in Africa.
– Libya has one of the most well established democracies in Africa, something it was heralded for not more than a decade back.

There is no other reason but to secure the 1 million barrels a day in OIL production and the vast OIL reserves they hold. Please read between the lines here, we have seen this before.

Just think, if a country of around 8 million strong really was fed up with the government and incited a revolt, why is it we are only seeing small brigands of “rebels” taking to the streets posting for photographs and shooting back. The Libyan government has a miniscule army of around 100,000 men on the ground and armor based around 1970’s technology! The reason being, the 7 million inhabitants are in fact not fed up with the rule of law! These are a funded rebel movement from OIL dependent nations attempting to dismantle the current government of the day so that the OIL will flow easily …. and cheaply!

Please read between the lines and don’t for a second believe we are fighting the good fight to saves lives!

Here is a list of countries they need help first while in Africa!

Zimbabwe
Congo
Niger
Liberia
…..
The list goes on ….

Mar 29, 2011 12:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SportsCar39 wrote:

What the hell is NATO waitting for, They should give the rebels all the Abram Tanks, High Tech Weapons and Airplanes(If they know how to fly them). Lets see how DAFFY’S Troops stand when the other side has the advantage!!!!! Hell give the rebels an AirCraft Carrier if that will get Daffy out of Libya!!!

Mar 29, 2011 1:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
leggett wrote:

Once again, if the west hadn’t intervened, this would have been over a week ago. If this is the only way that the oil impoverished west can obtain oil, god help us all.

Mar 29, 2011 1:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

@SportsCar39: Kadhafi’s name translates several different ways, so there is no one “official” way to spell it. He has not shown any preference for any specific spelling, so pretty much, so long as it sounds like “Kadhafi”, you’re probably spelling it right.

@ayesee: That’s called “unbiased reporting”. I can understand you not knowing what that is if you live in America. Unlike FoxNews, Reuters doesn’t try to bias you toward either side of the issue. They honestly, ethically and objectively report what all parties involved are saying and doing, and allow the readers to make their own judgments. America could do with some news organizations that use Unbiased Reporting; heaven knows that none of the major American news outlets are unbiased (all of them are heavily biased toward the Right Wing).

Mar 29, 2011 2:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Heretic1 wrote:

OK, Quaddaffi is an alleged monster. Does that mean that US and NATO are entitled to depose any government they dislike at will? George W. Bush is a monster, too. Did anybody try to topple him?

Mar 29, 2011 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Heretic1 wrote:

Quaddafi is just too reach and too independent. This is the only reasin why this mad French president wants to remove him aa well as why he is so sheepishly assisted by hypocritic Obama. This is dirty power game and nothing else. Obama’s moralizing is deceptive and shameful.

Mar 29, 2011 5:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

“Gadhafi” is the English spelling the Libyan leader uses for his Arabic name. Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama want regime change, not protection of civilians. The Russians are right — this is what is usually called “mission creep” — starting with one alleged goal and then expanding to others. Since these creeps started by bombing armor (it doesn’t fly, so “no-fly zone” was just a clever slogan to get permission to do whatever the UK-US-French Axis of Evil decided was necessary to get rid of a leader they tolerated for 40+ years.

As others have observed, these humanitarians did nothing about Sudan, other than whine about Darfur. Where were the bombs and missiles and “save the civilians” there? Makes you wonder what the US and its European teammates are up to. It isn’t about saving lives. This war would have been very brief if the Libyan Army had been allowed to win it.

Mar 29, 2011 8:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mcright wrote:

I sympathize Libyan people for being trapped between tyrant
rule and Western powers’ own agenda. In a democratic society, the people do have the power to vote; but they can choose only
among the political parties whose vision may not really for the good of their people. God know who are the rebels? If the rebels win,
they will be more influence in the new political system. Are
they really for the people of Libya? The best solution is
through a mandate from the UN to enforce a political process
for all the people of Libya to elect a new government without
resorting into current military action. This includes the resignation of Gaddafi to pave the way for such democratic process.

Mar 29, 2011 9:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

why is it that once again the fairly obvious is not registering there is only one way this guy is relinquishing his power, somebody needs to take this guy Gaddhafi out and he needs to be taken out yesterday whether or not he wants to go is irrelevant at this point he is costing the US money and they are wanting to take away my social security to play footsie with this bozo

Mar 29, 2011 10:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jeanmichel wrote:

I think the war in Libya has become a nightmare for the Western countries. Fotunately, the US is handing over the leadership of the war to NATO and hopefully will pull out completely. As for France and Britain they are too deeply committed now.

The Western countries have now realised the futility of the war from the air and they are desperately trying to find new solutions, like sending (or selling) arms to the rebels. This will be followed by training the rebels, and eventually sending ground troops into Libya. Even though this will be contrary to the UN resolution they will not care because they will have become very blood-thirsty. This will be a lesson to them that they should never intervene in the internal affairs of aother countries. Or, perhaps they will not understand the wisdom of this principle.

As for the public in the Western countries, they should not take as truth what their Governments and the media tell them. They should be more sophisticated and not act as simple-minded people.

Mar 29, 2011 11:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GeyeJo wrote:

Wag the dog, media. You guys suck.

Mar 29, 2011 11:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LarryinParker wrote:

@Jeanmichel: Obama is handing over the lead but we will continue to participate to some degree “with our unique capabilities”. If it turns sour we both know America will be back in up to our armpits. The rebels haven’t been winning territory by defeating Libyan forces; they occupy ground neutralized by coalition airstrikes. How they can defeat Kaddafi without civilian casualties is beyound belief. And, we should agree that the family members of government supporters are innocent civilians also.

Mar 29, 2011 11:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OmarMinyawi wrote:

with so many countries and armies against him and still standing, that Qazafi has proven to be strong with loyal people around him to start with.

Mar 30, 2011 1:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
kc10man wrote:

I’m guessing boots will be on the ground in 90 days to prevent a Somalia scenario.

Mar 30, 2011 2:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Nettle wrote:

//A conference of 40 governments and international bodies agreed to press on with a NATO-led aerial bombardment of Libyan forces until Gaddafi complied with a U.N. resolution to end violence against civilians.//

What about the “civilians”? Shall they end violence too?

I strongly disagree it’s about cheap oil. The US already controls the prices through its Big Finance and the “special relations” with the Gulf monarchies. The true thing is that the US is clearing the way for the most radical fundamentalists (the “flickers”) throughout the Middle East. They got it easily in Egypt and Tunisia, but Qaddafi’s regime turned out to be less corrupt, so it is impossible to rid of him with soft “orange” technologies. No trouble. It’s always possible to turn to hard instruments of democratization.

Mar 30, 2011 3:37am EDT  --  Report as abuse
beofaction wrote:

I guess regime change, bombing and killing is ok if it’s “your guy” or “your party” doing it. Where’s Pelosi? Kerry? Gore? Where are all the human shields? Where are all the so-called “peace” groups? Just as I suspected, they are despicable hypocrites and liars, without principles.

Mar 30, 2011 5:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.