NATO says alliance ready to protect Libyan civilians, urges UN agreement

[chuckd]

More editorial comments from Stratfor:

_______________________________________________________

Red Alert: Libyan Forces Approach Benghazi

March 19, 2011 | 1614 GMT

Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi began to approach the eastern rebel capital of Benghazi on March 19, with the BBC reporting that loyalist armor already is inside the city, though this may have been only a reconnaissance element. Soon after these reports, word of impending international military operations against Gadhafi’s forces began to emerge, with French and Italian aircraft reportedly beginning to conduct combat air patrols.

Though Gadhafi declared a unilateral cease-fire in response to the U.N. Security Council’s (UNSC) authorization of the use of force against Libya on March 17, it is becoming apparent that this was simply a stalling tactic in an attempt to consolidate gains ahead of airstrikes. The military incentive for Gadhafi is to reach Benghazi before any airstrikes begin. If a “no-drive” zone between Ajdabiya and Benghazi were to come into effect, military vehicles and supply convoys would be vulnerable to any coalition aircraft orbiting overhead, making it far more difficult for Gadhafi to project force across the large open terrain that separates the two cities. Airpower can also make it difficult to move and resupply forces, so the heavier elements of Gadhafi’s forces — tanks, tracked vehicles and artillery — already operating at the end of extended lines of supply, may quickly face logistical issues. However, while airpower can attempt to prevent forces from approaching the city, it cannot force the withdrawal of those forces from within the city without risking significant civilian casualties.

Read more here: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110319-red-alert-libyan-forces-benghazi?utm_source=redalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110319&utm_content=readmore&elq=2e0891db06434a16bbceea0c926be3ae

[flying]

The question, therefore, is not the mission but the strategy to be pursued. How far is the coalition, or at least some of its members, prepared to go to effect regime change and manage the consequences following regime change? How many resources are they prepared to provide and how long are they prepared to fight? It should be remembered that in Iraq and Afghanistan the occupation became the heart of the war, and regime change was merely the opening act. It is possible that the coalition partners haven’t decided on the strategy yet, or may not be in agreement.

That sums it up nicely & is what should have been carefully considered beforehand.

Edited March 20, 2011 by flying

[EnSvenskTiger]

"Life in Libya

To remind: Libya occupies the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa and it has the highest life expectancy on the continent. Libya attained the highest per capita income among African states. Libya enjoys the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa.

The quality of life is over a hundred times better than it was when he took over in 1969, when he instilled a policy of control of Libyan resources by Libyans for Libyans, then literacy rates rose from 10 to 90 per cent.

Education and health receive special attention from the State. The cultural level of its population is without a doubt the highest. Everyone has a home, can afford cars and all the necessities of life. In short, Gaddafi has constructed a new sort of society, one that works very well and one where the people participate.

During the global crisis when food prices soared, Gaddafi's government eliminated the taxes in order to make food more affordable.

The construction of a broad network of giant pipelines was undertaken (the "Great Man-Made River") bringing fresh water from an enormous lake beneath its large desert, in order to serve the needs of Libya's 6 million population."

So why was it attacked?

Read here http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/14-03-2011/117194-us_imperialists_all_options_on_the_table-0/

[mark45y]

"Life in Libya

To remind: Libya occupies the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa and it has the highest life expectancy on the continent. Libya attained the highest per capita income among African states. Libya enjoys the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa.

The quality of life is over a hundred times better than it was when he took over in 1969, when he instilled a policy of control of Libyan resources by Libyans for Libyans, then literacy rates rose from 10 to 90 per cent.

Education and health receive special attention from the State. The cultural level of its population is without a doubt the highest. Everyone has a home, can afford cars and all the necessities of life. In short, Gaddafi has constructed a new sort of society, one that works very well and one where the people participate.

During the global crisis when food prices soared, Gaddafi's government eliminated the taxes in order to make food more affordable.

The construction of a broad network of giant pipelines was undertaken (the "Great Man-Made River") bringing fresh water from an enormous lake beneath its large desert, in order to serve the needs of Libya's 6 million population."

So why was it attacked?

Read here http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/14-03-2011/117194-us_imperialists_all_options_on_the_table-0/

I agree. And Russia was better off under Stalin than Czar Nicholos. You just can't please some people can ya?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I cannot support this move - Libya and Khaddafi's forces haven't threatened or committed acts of war against other countries.

Khaddafi rightly regards this as an aggression against him personally.

He threatens with terrorism, but what else can he do?

I have an uneasy feeling about this, and if the NATO misses the colonel, this could be a reciepe for disaster.

You can't support the attempted prevention of a genocide? By the U.N.?

hahahah

Genocide?!

Where. Is Dan Rivers on the scene!

It's a strange world where the nations who would have you believe they represent the forces of good, rush to the aid of ragtag violent provocateurs killing and shooting their way to power. And the world sits transfixed in righteous indignation, cheering the outrage on.

Obviously Gaddafi is no saint. I'm quite sure he is, like every human in a position of power, shamefully morally bankrupt. But this is not a fight between good and evil. This is a fight between humans, and the nature of this particular, oft-repeated, charade...should really be very obvious surely?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-12795971

A French plane has fired the first shots in Libya as enforcement of the UN-mandated no-fly zone begins.

The UK prime minister later confirmed British planes were also in action, while US media reports said the US had fired its first Cruise missiles.

It allows "all necessary measures"

to protect civilians from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces

.

lol. That bloodthirsty tyrant! With his annoyingly proportionate response to unprovoked violent insurrection.

In Benghazi, crowds gathered at the courthouse that is the de facto rebel headquarters. About 200 people were in the area, drinking tea and talking.

Yeah! This is a nationwide violent uprising of a citizenry demanding their right to democracy; at the barrel of their AK-47s. And the masses are gathering to make their demands heard.

All 200 of them.

Other air forces and navies are expected to join the French.

The US would use its "unique capabilities" to reinforce the no-fly zone, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A naval blockade is also being put in place, said Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

France is sending its Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier to the Libyan coast, a military spokesman said.

Italy has offered the use of seven of its military bases.

Canada says its fighter jets have now reached the region.

The international community was intervening to stop the "murderous madness"

of Col Gaddafi, Mr Sarkozy said.

Oh they're all about saving lives? Cause I thought it was all about...wait, I'm confused. Who is he murdering exactly? In his madness?

"In Libya,

the civilian population, which is demanding nothing more than the right to choose their own destiny, is in mortal danger

," Sarkozy warned.

"It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal."

Well there you have it. It's Sarko's duty. He has no choice, he's compelled by sheer human decency to bomb the crap out of Tripoli. But...It's just that...where was this duty to respond, when millions of Tutsi men, women and children were being raped and slaughtered in unspeakable horror, in the Rwandan genocide? And in others? Which are ongoing, not all that far from Libya, in fact.

Where was this duty to respond when Myanmar generals refused to honour a 80% electoral victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's party, arresting her instead and ruthlessly bludgeoning unarmed monks who (foolishly) believed their robes and peaceful dissent would stay the flow of blood?

The international community has finally woken up! It's about time! And they're rushing to the aid of...who? 300 jihadists armed by...? Violent Islamic revolutionaries fighting for Allah (oh, and democracy of course!), killing their way to Utopia - of course they have to engage in some good old-fashioned terrorism, to make their more perfect world. We all know that's how more perfect worlds are made, can't do it without a little spilling of blood - the recipe calls for it.

And why shouldn't the West, lovers of democracy and freedom and humanitarians that we all are...rush to lend our trillion-dollar military assets in support of hundreds of bedraggled freedom fighters, in their violent quest to overthrow a dictator who (rightly or wrongly) is adored by the majority of six million Libyans?

Those 300 violent jihadists have torn at the heartstrings of the Western military powers in ways the unthinkable raping and machete-slaughter of millions of helpless women and children did not.

Strange, no? For a nation which just banned the burqa.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Libya's claims to have implemented a ceasefire were "troubling". The lack of confidence was so great that he did not trust what the Libyan leadership was saying, Mr Ban added.

lol. The UN Secretary-General, the Puppet Protector of the Peace, is 'troubled' and lacks 'confidence'. And this leaves military strikes as the only remaining option? Hmm, I dunno...

I'm not a fancy Secretary, but it seems to me that the UN could - and I'm just spit-balling here - accept the frantic pleading of the Libyan government, begging for observers on the ground to verify the fact that they're adhering to the outrageous rules the UN had the nerve to impose upon a government struggling with a domestic (cough) jihad. So that he could ease his troubled mind, and restablish the requisite levels of confidence, that the 300 violent Islamic jihadists weren't meeting with law and order in their struggle to overthrow a widely popular demagogue.

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said that Libyan officials had informed the UN and the Security Council that the government was holding to the ceasefire

and called for a team of foreign observers to verify that.

''The nation is respecting all the commitments put on it by the international community,'' he said.

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the rebels — and not Col Gadhafi's forces — broke a ceasefire called by the government. ''Our armed forces continue to retreat and hide, but the rebels keep shelling us and provoking us,'' Mr Moussa said.

Oh, I've seen this script play out before. With my own eyes, in stunned (childishly naive) disbelief. Everyone who was in Bangkok circa mid-2010 has seen this show already. Yawn.

But lol @ Gaddafi. He's no Abhisit. He's no match for ludicrosity and the BBC. He just doesn't get it. Poor sap.

To Mr Obama, the Libyan leader was conciliatory:

"If you had found them taking over American cities with armed force, tell me what you would do?''

lol.

Because sure Colonel, that's what this is all about. Justice. Logic. Fairness. lolol

What an idiot. He's not fit to lead a nation, because he's too stupid to hold onto one, when it is wanted.

This is not a game where confused and pathetic appeals to rationality or sanity will hold water. This game was decided the instant the Colonel stupidly thought that 300 violent armed jihadists trying to take over his country of 6,000,000...were suicidal crackpots, to be dealt with appropriately.

Which was the worst possible thing he could have done. They might be suicidal, but that's not the point. The point is really very, very simple. Laughably so.

In the course of the rebellion,

Libya has gone from

a once-promising economy with the largest proven oil reserves in Africa

to a country in turmoil.

lol. He really should be skatzing along right about now; I'm afraid this game has been called.

If he doesn't, I have a gut feeling about what his immediate future will hold.

[Richb2004v2]

The colonel has not allowed any kind of opposition in his 42 year rule. He has suppressed his people whilst cleverly ensuring that they do at least have money for cars and houses. In Feb the people came out to demonstrate and he attempted to suppress them again. Maybe if he has been a little more flexible over the years this may not be happening. Many people here are like the Libyans themselves. If the west does nothing they will be up in arms, but if the west does take action again they are up in arms.

Surely when one man takes control of a country and then starts killing it's people for complaining outside help is needed.

The reason that he has recently been tolerated and even courted is because his compliance is far better than having him as he once was, funding every terrorist organization and trying to arm himself with all manner of weapons. It was the lesser of two evils. Had Saddam taken the same route as he did he would have got the same treatment. Better a calm and controlled mad man than a loose nutcase.

[Steely Dan]

The reason that he has recently been tolerated and even courted is because his compliance is far better than having him as he once was, funding every terrorist organization and trying to arm himself with all manner of weapons. It was the lesser of two evils. Had Saddam taken the same route as he did he would have got the same treatment. Better a calm and controlled mad man than a loose nutcase.

Indeed! A compliant despot is so much easier to contain, a bit like a nuclear fuel rod in it's containment vessel

Still some seem to believe that in their gratitude for achieving freedom the people concerned will embrace a western democratic model instead of succumbing to an Islamic theocracy led by a mad man, and let's face it they all are, mad.

The lunatics have taken over the assylum.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Richb2004v2]

I've been in contact with Libyans since it started. For the first week or so they complained at 'the shame of the west' for doing nothing. It was all the fault of the west. Then a week or so later when noises were being made by the west to take action their noise changed to 'we don't want the west to come and take our oil. They will come only for the oil!'.

Personally I understand why there is intervention, but my experience of Libya and Libyans says it's better to leave them to it.

[bangkokeddy]

I've been in contact with Libyans since it started. For the first week or so they complained at 'the shame of the west' for doing nothing. It was all the fault of the west. Then a week or so later when noises were being made by the west to take action their noise changed to 'we don't want the west to come and take our oil. They will come only for the oil!'.

Personally I understand why there is intervention, but my experience of Libya and Libyans says it's better to leave them to it.

I guess the Libyans you know have their experience of the west too.

Most of us will hate us for the intervention and the other 300 just think "LOL, useful idiot".

[LaoPo]

I've been in contact with Libyans since it started. For the first week or so they complained at 'the shame of the west' for doing nothing. It was all the fault of the west. Then a week or so later when noises were being made by the west to take action their noise changed to 'we don't want the west to come and take our oil. They will come only for the oil!'.

Personally I understand why there is intervention, but my experience of Libya and Libyans says it's better to leave them to it.

A very understanding reaction from the Libyans.

Today, reporters, right inside Libya asked for many reactions and the main consensus was that the "rebels" didn't believe the allied forces, and America in particular, would come and help them. .....They simply couldn't believe their eyes that the alllies were indeed coming to help them; they are stunned.

If you are indoctrinated for 42 years (without free press or media) and heard nothing else that America and the west was bad-bad-bad-bad and nothing but evil, only interested in Libya because of it's oil...what would YOU believe?

Only in the past few years, since the introduction of social media, the Libyan peoples' opinion changed....slowly.

LaoPo

Edited March 20, 2011 by LaoPo

[flying]

the main consensus was that the "rebels" didn't believe the allied forces, and America in particular, would come and help them.

The US has helped rebels in the past.....Namely the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan

The US Government supplied the Osama bin Laden Freedom Fighters with stinger missiles,

with tactical advisors and CIA exploits it was somewhat an interesting game that today we are still trying in vain to correct.

It turned OBL into a national hero. Will we now do the same with the rebels? Will we later regret it?

It is not our fight. Our actions this time can only be seen as an unprovoked attack/ act of war.

Because literally We The People of the US have not been provoked.

Edited March 20, 2011 by flying

[LaoPo]

the main consensus was that the "rebels" didn't believe the allied forces, and America in particular, would come and help them.

The US has helped rebels in the past.....Namely the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan

The US Government supplied the Osama bin Laden Freedom Fighters with stinger missiles,

with tactical advisors and CIA exploits it was somewhat an interesting game that today we are still trying in vain to correct.

It turned OBL into a national hero. Will we now do the same with the rebels? Will we later regret it?

It is not our fight. Our actions this time can only be seen as an unprovoked attack/ act of war.

Because literally We The People of the US have not been provoked.

".......We The People of the US have not been provoked."

If that would be the only reason dear Flying.....many wars (better read: most wars and conflicts) would NOT have been fought nor started by the USA or any of the other allies in this conflict...

The problem is nested much deeper.

99% of the members here cannot even comprehend what it means to be "locked and gagged" within a dictatorial system where there is no freedom, no democracy and no free press and media.

"We" can only judge by the same in our own hemispheres, whether "our" free press and media, including our impeccable governments tell us the truth or not.

How many times have we been lied upon by our governments; how many times things and sensitive cases were covered up; why is WikiLeaks so sensitive to the governments of the world ?..because they were so honest with us?

You know and I know so we really can't abandon the people who have been oppressed for so long...42 years to be precise, and let them swim in their own blood now and decide to step aside because we have not been provoked.

Or did we forget that this insane man gave the order to blow up a plane, causing 270 dead people on December 21, in 1988 over Lockerbie?

Let me tell you that I was flying the same route to Los Angeles from London a few days later, also with Pan Am flight 103, and couldn't change my ticket anymore and I wasn't feeling too comfortable that flight

Not provoked ?

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

the main consensus was that the "rebels" didn't believe the allied forces, and America in particular, would come and help them.

The US has helped rebels in the past.....Namely the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan

The US Government supplied the Osama bin Laden Freedom Fighters with stinger missiles,

with tactical advisors and CIA exploits it was somewhat an interesting game that today we are still trying in vain to correct.

It turned OBL into a national hero. Will we now do the same with the rebels? Will we later regret it?

I don't think most Americans regret helping the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan as it helped destroy the Soviet Union. However, we have paid a high price for arming and training them.

I'm afraid that intervening in Libya is a big mistake, but we are in it now and it is too late to turn back.

[metisdead]

One off topic troll post removed from view.

[coma]

And all of ISAF,especially those who sacrificed thier lives in Afghanistan, have paid the price for the US arming and training them to defeat the Russians.

[kuffki]

If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis.

Again, I agree.

Unfortunately the opposite is true. Smart are the Germans - they stay out of this.

The US isn't smart and pushing this and telling empty platitudes about peace, the French joined this time the stupidity.

That nuclear reactor in Japan is a completely different issue than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factually incorrect!

French initiated the action and were the first to send jets. That would be the reason why French president's name is chanted all over the streets by the rebels(just turn your TV on any news channel)

USA is not the leading country and has said so numerous times already.

Germany did not support it to start with, however now officially regrets NOT being part of it and hence already pledged 5 000 000 euro

Edited March 21, 2011 by kuffki

[mark45y]

If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis.

Again, I agree.

Unfortunately the opposite is true. Smart are the Germans - they stay out of this.

The US isn't smart and pushing this and telling empty platitudes about peace, the French joined this time the stupidity.

That nuclear reactor in Japan is a completely different issue than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factually incorrect!

French initiated the action and were the first to send jets. That would be the reason why French president's name is chanted all over the streets by the rebels(just turn your TV on any news channel)

USA is not the leading country and has said so numerous times already.

Germany did not support it to start with, however now officially regrets NOT being part of it and hence already pledged 5 000 000 euro

Listening to TV reports apparently the German government is quite upset (embarrassed) at misreading the will of it's citizens on this issue. I would not be surprised to see some change in German policy.

[chuckd]

If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis.

Again, I agree.

Unfortunately the opposite is true. Smart are the Germans - they stay out of this.

The US isn't smart and pushing this and telling empty platitudes about peace, the French joined this time the stupidity.

That nuclear reactor in Japan is a completely different issue than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factually incorrect!

French initiated the action and were the first to send jets. That would be the reason why French president's name is chanted all over the streets by the rebels(just turn your TV on any news channel)

USA is not the leading country and has said so numerous times already.

Germany did not support it to start with, however now officially regrets NOT being part of it and hence already pledged 5 000 000 euro

Germany just blew their chance to be on the winning side for the first time in the past two centuries.

[bangkokeddy]

If the USA is smart it stays out of this. It should do what the Germans, French and Italians do: Offer empty platitudes about the need for peace. That way no one has to deal with the crisis. The USA should focus on getting out of Iraq, finding a way out of Afghanistan and helping its ally Japan with the nuclear crisis.

Again, I agree.

Unfortunately the opposite is true. Smart are the Germans - they stay out of this.

The US isn't smart and pushing this and telling empty platitudes about peace, the French joined this time the stupidity.

That nuclear reactor in Japan is a completely different issue than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factually incorrect!

French initiated the action and were the first to send jets. That would be the reason why French president's name is chanted all over the streets by the rebels(just turn your TV on any news channel)

USA is not the leading country and has said so numerous times already.

Germany did not support it to start with, however now officially regrets NOT being part of it and hence already pledged 5 000 000 euro

55555.

Did you read what geriatrickid wrote?: If the USA is smart it stays out of this.

Do they?

Answer: No.

[kuffki]

55555.

Did you read what geriatrickid wrote?: If the USA is smart it stays out of this.

Do they?

Answer: No.

Do not look for a scapegoat instead of addressing your own uninformed and incompetent post.

[elcent]

google translation from http://www.spiegel.d...,752144,00.html

first paragraph means the Gaddafi could be the direct target dependingon the circumstances and if civilians are used as shields according to british foreign minister William Hague

second paragraph tells us that the situation in Misurata is very serious. Gaddafi's troops are dragging civilians into the city to be used as human shields. Also Gadaffi's soldiers have dressed up as civiliians and are stationed in the city center.

Please download google chrome for easy and fast translation of any language.

[elcent]

10:45pm An atmosphere of panic and chaos has gripped Tripoli's international airport, strewn with luggage left behind by fleeing passengers and besieged by crowds on Saturday trying to escape the escalating violence. Thousands of people, many of them migrant workers from the Middle East and Africa, have camped out for days on little more than bread and water in the hope of leaving.

10:25pm AJE source says that "security officials were at Tripoli medical centre all day today ... the injured did not go in for help". He estimates that 70 were killed last night alone.

"They were left to drown in their own blood ... the blood banks are empty ... last night (Friday) Tripoli medical centre was over run with the wounded" - aljazeera

Edited March 21, 2011 by elcent

[elcent]

+ + + Demonstrators harass UN Secretary General + + +

[11.39 clock] in Cairo, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon met with reactions of open protest. Demonstrators presented him with pictures of Libyan dictator Qaddafi and U.S. critical banners in the way when he came back from a meeting of the Arab League. He immediately returned to the house and left it by a rear exit. Later, his convoy of Egyptians and Libyans was pelted with stones.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752144,00.html

google translation

[elcent]

11:27pm Gaddafi's offer on a ceasefire isn't enough to deter Britain from enforcing the no-fly zone, a spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron says:

Everyone will recall that in recent days Colonel Gaddafi declared a ceasefire which was promptly violated ... We said then we would judge him on his actions not his words - and we will do so again.

His obligations are very clearly set out by the UN Security Council resolution. Our assessment is that he is in breach of these obligations so we will continue to enforce the resolution.

Aljazeera

[elcent]

+ + + Alliance disputes the chief question + + +

[11.52 clock], just two days after the start of attacks against Libya threatens the dispute over the command of the intervention at risk. France wants to usurp the leadership of the operations per se, but the calls for a takeover by NATO are getting louder. "We have to come from a coalition of the willing to a more coordinated approach under the NATO", the Italian Foreign Minister Frattini said in Brussels. But Turkey is blocked from anger over Paris now that the Alliance will take control. The U.S., which have flown since Saturday, most attacks do to get rid of their leadership role as soon as possible.

google translation http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752144,00.html

oh my, Turkey tries to block - unexpected?

[elcent]

(All times are local in Libya GMT+2)

• 1:20pmNamik Tan, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, has written on Twitter that the four New York Times journalists - two reporters and two photographers - "are on their way to leave Libyan border and will be delivered to US officials."
  Since US diplomatic personnel have withdrawn from Libya and the embassy has been shut down, Turkey is serving as the protector of US interests in the country. Tan said they were released this morning after negotiations between Turkey and Libya.

• Aljazeera

[LaoPo]

Germany just blew their chance to be on the winning side for the first time in the past two centuries.

You don't understand the deep frustration and fears amongst Germans about taking part in any war or conflict, no matter it's 65 years after WWII ended. The present German population is very anti-war and would be very upset if Germany would have taken part in this coalition against Gaddafi.

However, Germany is involved already -indirectly- since the NATO Awacs, patrolling over Libya, are stationed mainly in Germany and the crew of those Awacs is for about 1/3 German.

Germany is already in a difficult position since they are discussing right now the option of sending more crew/soldiers/staff to Afghanistan, a very sensitive subject amongst the German population and not very popular.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's position is not very comfortable right now because of elections in six regions and if her government would have taken direct part in the coalition she would have been on very slippery ice.

It's all politics.

LaoPo

Edited March 21, 2011 by LaoPo

[chuckd]

Germany just blew their chance to be on the winning side for the first time in the past two centuries.

You don't understand the deep frustration and fears amongst Germans about taking part in any war or conflict, no matter it's 65 years after WWII ended. The present German population is very anti-war and would be very upset if Germany would have taken part in this coalition against Gaddafi.

However, Germany is involved already -indirectly- since the NATO Awacs, patrolling over Libya, are stationed mainly in Germany and the crew of those Awacs is for about 1/3 German.

Germany is already in a difficult position since they are discussing right now the option of sending more crew/soldiers/staff to Afghanistan, a very sensitive subject amongst the German population and not very popular.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's position is not very comfortable right now because of elections in six regions and if her government would have taken direct part in the coalition she would have been on very slippery ice.

It's all politics.

LaoPo

I understand, LP.

If they keep relying on their constitution forbidding armed intervention, some other nation will have to do the heavy lifting.

Germany has had a free ride since 1946.

[LaoPo]

Germany just blew their chance to be on the winning side for the first time in the past two centuries.

You don't understand the deep frustration and fears amongst Germans about taking part in any war or conflict, no matter it's 65 years after WWII ended. The present German population is very anti-war and would be very upset if Germany would have taken part in this coalition against Gaddafi.

However, Germany is involved already -indirectly- since the NATO Awacs, patrolling over Libya, are stationed mainly in Germany and the crew of those Awacs is for about 1/3 German.

Germany is already in a difficult position since they are discussing right now the option of sending more crew/soldiers/staff to Afghanistan, a very sensitive subject amongst the German population and not very popular.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's position is not very comfortable right now because of elections in six regions and if her government would have taken direct part in the coalition she would have been on very slippery ice.

It's all politics.

LaoPo

I understand, LP.

If they keep relying on their constitution forbidding armed intervention, some other nation will have to do the heavy lifting.

Germany has had a free ride since 1946.

Yes, and maybe they're smarter than any other country and that's also why they are # 1 economy in Europe despite the fact that the Western part of Germany had to endure the enormous amounts of Billons of DM and later Euros pumped (and still pumping) in the poor Eastern part of Germany after the reunification in 1990; a fact no other EU country had to endure.

The Germans called it Die Wende, The Turning Point, but which has costed the Western part of Germany more than $ 2 Trillion (NOT Billions!) an unimaginable amount of money..and still be the #1 leading economy in Europe.

Truly amazing but also showing how much a country can prosper without having to go to war...

Just think of it.

LaoPo

[bangkokeddy]

The Germans seems to know that the use of armed force isn't conflict solving.

And i wouldn't describe the US, the UK or France as the winner here. What they have won or will win?