Have u heard the last interview that took place between Al quadafi son and euronews reporter.When the reporter asked saif about france recognition  of  the transition government, he replied that the French president should return the money that libya financed him during his electoral campaign.he added that he has the documents and proofs.is his statement  true or is it just lies or  a political game.

Have u heard the last interview that took place between Al quadafi son and euronews reporter.When the reporter asked saif about france recognition  of  the rebel Libyan National Council. , he replied that the French president should return the money that libya financed him during his electoral campaign.he added that he has the documents and proofs.is his statement  true orARE just lies or MERLY a political game.

Observer,

I read that this morning in the Washington Post:

For being out front so clearly, Sarkozy was condemned Wednesday by Gaddafi’s most influential son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who called the French leader “crazy” in a television interview and tried to embarrass him by saying the Libyan government financed his election campaign in 2007.

Sarkozy’s office issued a swift denial. But the accusation was likely to become part of the political debate in France as the country moves closer to the next presidential vote, scheduled for spring 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-pleads-for-military-intervention-as-gaddafi-forces-attack-libyan-rebels/2011/03/16/ABSX3we_story.html

Is it true?  Who knows.  It is obviously vindictiveness on Saif's part to even bring it up.  It may have been out of surprised indignation, or just an attempt to avoid answering the question and the embarassment of having your enemies recognized as the legitimate leader of your country.

Wouldn't surprise me though.  The French are broke and their motivations are usually suspect.  They have a recent history of bribes, kickbacks, and conflicts of interests tainting their goverment in international affairs.

hey jay thanks for u reply.if sarkozy were pleaded guilty what would be u country reaction.but if saif statement was not true would he be acused of spreading rumours and trial.

Z,

Sarkozy?  Saif?  Who cares.  I can't stand everything that both of them represent.

More importantly, when are you going to go outside and topple that King of yours?  I actually like King Mohammed, because, as far as Muslim-kings-directly-descended-from-the-prophet go, he has done a good job steering Morocco in the right direction.  If Mubarak had instituted the democratic reforms that Mohammed and his dad has, then Mubarak would still be in power, still robbing the country blind.

But I digress.  Arabs are taking to the streets Zawaje.  Get off your butt and get in the fight!

Sarkozy?  Saif?  Who cares.  I can't stand everything that both of them represent.

can u eleborate.I am peaceful jay i believe that one should not resort to violance or go out to street to fight.They are many means such as wisdom, good manners and dialogue.Once i talked to a japan artist whom i invited .I was attracted by  his feedback , his senerity and good manners.With nice words snow can be melted and sealed hearts become lenient.

Jay

I am against manifestation  in the street or for sit in.Violance produces only

 human and material casualities .

Hafidh Ibn Rajab writes, "When the righteous predecessors intended to give  advice to someone, they admonished him privately, to the point that some of them said, "The one who exhorts his brother between him and himself , then it is an advice The one who exhorts him in front of people, then it is merely scolding!"

Abdul Hamid Bilali writes, "Choosing proper time and place is one of the greatest causes for the acceptance of ADVICE  naseehah and eradicating evil", and as Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud said, "Hearts (sometimes) yearn and are attentive, but (sometimes) they go through lapses and feed repulsion. So take from them when they are (in a state of) yearning and are attentive, and leave them alone when they go through lapses and are feeling repulsion".

Imam Muslim narrates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Kindness is not to be found in anything but that it adds to its beauty, and it is not withdrawn from anything but it makes it defective.

I hope this is only political posturing:

The US is pushing the UN to authorise not just a no-fly zone over Libya, but also the use of air strikes to stop the advance of forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.

Washington's ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said on Wednesday that a no-fly zone would have only a limited use, and that the Obama administration was working "very hard" to pass a new resolution, which would authorise the use of aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery.

The UN security council is planning to vote on the resolution late on Thursday....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-air-strikes-urged-us-un

I can't imagine that the Americans have managed to convince the UNSC to vote for such a measure, as this goes FAR beyond what has been discussed up to this point.  Sounds like the Americans are playing politics, putting ultimate blame for inaction on the Chinese and the Russians.

I disagree Jay, I think it's a real attempt to leverage military action in Libya. Probably arrived at by the conclusion that Kadaffi will soon crush the rebellion, and then begin exterminating anyone suspected of supported them.

Jay,

It's more than politics, but less than unilateral action.  But I also think by the time UNSC decides on a course of action, it will be moot.

Mike,

It's more than politics, but less than unilateral action.  But I also think by the time UNSC decides on a course of action, it will be moot.

I think its politics.  The Chinese and the Russians are not too keen on intervention.  The US didn't begin lobbying for the no-fly zone to initiate intervention, they jumped in with a suggestion to join the battle with A-10s knocking out Gadaffi's armor.  There is no way the Russians are going to allow NATO to strut their stuff in the southern Meditteranean, and the Americans have to know that.

But, more importantly, I am interested in this portion of your quote: "...but less than unilateral action."

Does that mean that you would like to see America act unilaterally in Libya?

Mike and Chris,

I don't know how closely you guys are following ground reports from Libya, but I am a bit obsessed with it.  It looks like Gadaffi's offensive has stalled.  It was relatively easy for Gadaffi to sail across the open desert, but he has encountered problems in the cities.

Brega is a town of 4000 or so.  It is more of a village, actually.  Once the rebels had even the slightest defensive cover, they were able to put up a resistence.  Remember that Brega changed hands 4 times. (!)

Gadaffi's forces are still besieging Misrata farther to the west, and that has been going on for 2 weeks now.  That is a city of half a million, and Gadaffi has got his work cut out for him taking that one over.  Ajdabiya is a city of 100,000, and is the first major test of urban warfare that the brigades attacking the east have faced.  This is where the eastern offensive has stalled.  About 40 hours ago, Saif al-Islam said that this would all be over in 48 hours, remember?  I don't think he got that one right.

Also, journalists have reported that rebels have denied them access to Ajdabiya because they are under orders not to let them in.  That is the first instance of any semblance of command and control that I have heard on the rebel side, and that is very significant.

The eastern offensive has stalled, and I hope that is a sign that the tide is turning.  Remember that Gadaffi only has about 10,000 troops that he can count on to pacify the entire country.  He only has a few thousand men and a few dozen tanks on the eastern offensive, and he has no hopes for reinforcements or resupply of hardware.

Every hour that passes with the loyalists held up in Ajdabiya increases the morale of the rebels, and gives them more time to organize.  We have to let the winds of change blow.

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/security_council_to_pass_resolution_authorizing_military_intervention_in_libya

Hopefully, this is just an attempt to frighten loyalists into changing sides.  I want Gadaffi to fall, but I still believe that intervention is a terrible mistake.  The post-Gadaffi situation will be "unwinnable" for the West, and we don't want to be blamed for it.  Arab tyrants have made long and profitable careers for themselves by blaming the West for all of the Arab troubles, and this will be another chapter of propaganda for them.

Let the Arabs take responsibility for themselves, their history, and their failures.  Only then--when they understand that they are indeed responsible for their own destiny--will they actively seek to change their future for the better.

Jay,

Could you elaborate a little more?

Holy Shit! The UN Security Council just authorized a no fly zone.

Seriously, I'm stunned...overwhelmed even. Who would've thought it. This is a HUGE win for Obama, the Libyan people, and for the US, who obviously brokered an impossible deal.

Chris,

The UN Security Council just authorized a no fly zone.

That was some fine detective work, Sherlock.  I posted that news hours ago.

Here is the draft:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/17/draft.resolution.on.libya.pdf?hpt=T1

Under "Protection of Civilians", Paragraph 4 authorizes participating states or organizations "to take all necessary measure...to protect civilians...under threat of attack...while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form..."

That is more than a "no-fly zone".  That is authorization to attack Gadaffi's forces, as the document earlier states that he is already guilty of attacking civilians and causing a refugee crisis.

Gadaffi's forces are camped outside Misrata and Ajdibya in open desert.  Three waves of American A-10s or Apaches could demolish all of his armor in a couple of hours.  So what happens then?  We plunge the country into anarchy and then watch from our living rooms as the civil war rages for the next couple of years.

I just don't think it is worth it.  Who are we helping?  Who is going to fill the vaccuum?  This is Iraq all over again, but without an American babysitter to foster the transition to democracy.  Egypt has their military, Tunisia has their military, Iraq has the American military, but Libya has nothing.

This might simply be a game of "There is going to be chaos, and no matter what we do we are going to be blamed, so we may as well do the obvious and then claim we have done all we can."

If airstrikes come tomorrow, and Gadaffi's forces are wiped out, the Libyans will have no emotional investment in their revolution.  They won't have fought and died for it, someone else will have given it to them.  No one group will have gained political legitimacy for having defeated Gadaffi, and that leaves the door wide open for the warlords.

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be a long one.

Jay,

Apparently, I was too generous with my praise for Obama, as it appears he was more of an obstacle to the no fly zone than he was a driving force for it.

Oh well, there's always Hillary for 2012.

Obama is being tentative.  He is right to want the US to NOT take the lead and let that become another propaganda talking point about the US attacking yet another Muslim country.  It's a little weird to see the French so far out front, but they have a big stake in preserving access to Libyan oil.   

This is still too little and too late.  Gadffi has largely won and can afford to be magnanimous and call for a cease-fire.  Rebel forces are disorganized, isolated and unsustained.  Had Obama championed a No Fly Zone with the UN while the rebels still occupied major portions of Libya, it might have meant something for him and them.  But now it is largely symbolic and weak...something the UN is very good at.  

The supposed weakness of the UN is a persistent and radical misconception.

No...it's a persistent and accurate characterization, unless incomptence is the goal.  Then you're right, they've achieved maximum efficiency. 

What has the UN actually accomplished that impresses you so much?  Successfully voted to enforce a No-Fly zone after Gadaffi has largely  accomplished his goal of breaking the back of the rebellion? 

Hip-hip-hooray!

What has the UN actually accomplished that impresses you so much?

The UN is the member states, particularly in cases of peace-keeping. France and the UK are taking the lead in preparing for military action. Arab states thought most likely to contribute are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Political backing comes particularly from the Arab League, the United States and other members of the Security Council.

The immediate result is that Gaddafi has declared a cease-fire.

The immediate result is that Gaddafi has declared a cease-fire.

That's the big accomplishment...a cease-fire?  Called by Gadaffi after he decimated the rebels and forced them into a single, unsustainable location where he can wait them out? 

Quite an end state the UN achieved!  Your threshold for acceptable success is remarkably low. 

Eric, you really are deluding yourself if you think this is any kind of UN success. Mike's absolutely right: The UN did what it always does -- talk -- while Libya burned. Isn't it amazing how this resolution passed only after it could do no possible good for Libyan revolutionaries? It's political posturing, nothing more -- some member states wanting to look like they're being decisive without having to actually be decisive.

He claims to have "decimated" them as you put it.  Mostly he has just killed civilians and destroyed a lot of property.  He cannot wait anyone out.  He has to achieve a quick win and it's doubtful he could do that anyway.  His "cease fire" is cat and mouse.  He will claim it as an humanitarian gesture.  it's probably a lie anyway.

I was against this intervention but IF it stops him from shelling civilians then I suppose it MAY be a good thing.  We shall have to see whether or not he is able to exploit it as foreign interference.  He will not last long either way.

Eric,

You are a stubborn guy, but the best way to get the Americans to shut up would be to admit that the UN is horribly imperfect.  If you acknowledge the problems with the UN--such as the misnomer of "peacekeepers", or that it is often fraught with professional jealousies like that between America and France, or that it too is guilty of thirld world style corruption--then we could probably move on with that discussion.

I don't understand why you guys believe that the rebels were largely defeated.  The conflict was moving into the urban warfare stage, which would have been in the rebel's favor.

The way I see it, the UN could no longer ignore Libya because of: 1, even the Arab League endorsed action, and 2, Gadaffi resorted to shelling the urban centers instead of moving in to clear the rebels.  We talked about it a couple of pages ago, when I mentioned that unless he resorted to "Hama" style tactics, Gadaffi would not provoke an international response.

The rebels are alive and well, and Gadaffi is more desperate than ever.

“Isn't it amazing how this resolution passed only after it could do no possible good for Libyan revolutionaries?”

You didn’t expect it to pass before it was on the agenda, did you?

None of our governments had in reality much of an issue with Gaddafi. He delivered oil and cooperated keeping Africans away from Fortress Europe. In Sunday Speeches he was a dictator too.

Then there was an uprising, and our governments couldn’t deny the Sunday Speeches: they couldn’t say they hoped G. used his weapons (delivered by whom?) to crush these rebels who were in danger of establishing a government with completely unknown policies. We can’t have that, can we?

And since Gaddafi isn’t able to crush the rebellion although he is trying that brutally enough, it is time to make sure that neither side will be in power.

“While I was there, they hung bombs on their aircraft despite the fact they had never dropped any in practice and hadn't even bought the software from the French to do so.  They are more dangerous to themselves than Gadaffi”

Don’t worry, the Alibi-Arabs won’t be allowed to play with their bombs.

“I was against this intervention but IF it stops him from shelling civilians then I suppose it MAY be a good thing.”

If, yes. Has there ever been such a thing as an intervention in order to protect civilians? In the contrary, when warmongers talk of the protection of civilians, it is time to flee and hide. See Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many more.

You're answering an argument that no one is making.

I'm answering the misconception that the UN is a talking shop and nothing more. Discussions are held and decisions are made by member states and implemented, or not, by member states. That's democracy in action. It doesn't have the crushing efficiency of the exercise of imperial power but it's widely considered to be preferable, however imperfect.