Libya fighting prompts condemnation by G7 and UN

Looks like Libya might be under another dictatorship soon. General Haftar's LNA is now entering suburban areas in Tripoli and they seem to be facing very little resistance. They have already taken most of the country and the oil fields in the south, along with all the major airports. Russia is reporting they are concerned about the use of combat aircraft along with the fact that Haftar has declared a no fly zone as of today.

Libya does actually need one government, as they have had two large conflicting ones or been governed by militias since the revolution ended so Haftar's gamble looks like it will resolve that issue. Its funny that the international community seems to think this is a bad thing, as it will bring stability once its all over and Libya's oil back to the markets.

Concerning the dictatorship, its not ideal but better than nothing and Haftar is supposedly anti-islamic radicals. (As most dictators are btw, considering groups are a threat to individual power.)

 

Nobody cares in the slightest what the UN thinks or wants. Even less people care what the G7 thinks or wants.

Does KSA have a legitimate reason to be in Libya? Yes. Have they taken it too far? Yes.

 

Why do I care about Libya again?

 

so "our guy" UN backed Fayez Mustafa al-Sarraj is being attacked by General Khalifa Hifter, who is also backed by "our guy" Mohamed bin Salman...sounds about right.. our guy fighting our guy to result in opposite goal we set out to achieve... perfect.

What a joke... the UN's Soros inspired revolution to bring .... haaa heee haaa "Democracy" turned into a fractured messtocracy and will finally end up under General Khalifa Hifter's autocracy.... how many dead?

 

Why do we care about Libya?
Those Arabs should be allowed to marinate in their own juices undisturbed.

 

Especially in relation to Libya - Where was the UN and G7 when NATO was turning the place into a Jihadist wonderland ??

 

Normally I'd say it's none of our business, but since our government is behind the fall of Gaddafi causing the resulting anarchy, I think we should try to help if at all possible without getting mired into another cluster f__k.

 

Maybe Hillary Clinton should go help fix the country she broke?

 

Libya !!!

One of President Obama's and Hillary's legacies.

 

High five to Obummer, Shillary Clinton, and their eurotrash lackeys.

 

No idea why we attacked Libya - just another day in the life of our crazy Military - which seems hell bent on creating terrorist havens.

 

Exactly. Both Bush and Obama wanted to make the world safe for the oil companies and all they did was start wars to kill millions of people and have the people there hate us even more. They don't want us there, the US is now an exporter of oil. If the oil companies want more oil, let them start thier own war and not drag the US into it.

 

Don't ever mention the movie "13 Hours" to a Democrat. They go ballistic slobbering all over themselves as they spew obscenities.

 

You mean our former crazy SoS Clinton and NATO.

 

The US Navy/Marines is in the Persian Gulf to protect the shipping lanes so ME oil and saftey get to the world markets. This is why Trump wants the countries who get this protection to pay their fair share.

 

No, they are there to protect the profits of the oil companies. Why are the shipping lanes in danger in the first place?
We destroyed Iraq at the behest of Kuwait and SA as Hussein was a danger to them. If we stay out of mideast politics and keep Israel from keep expanding its borders while still military supporting them this crap would not be happening.

We act like we should decide who rules every country in the world. Americans are up in arms because Russia hacked some opinion pieces on facebook about an election but we have the right to militarily overthrow another country or actively form rebellious groups in that country.

 

Lock Her Up !!

 

ALL TRUE AND UNDRSTANDABLE ...

BUT

THEN ASK YOUR TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHAT THE F*** THIS HAS AS REASON...

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/04/290949.htm

"The United States is deeply concerned about fighting near Tripoli. We have made clear that we oppose the military offensive by Khalifa Haftar's forces and urge the immediate halt to these military operations against the Libyan capital. Forces should return to status quo ante positions. All involved parties have a responsibility to urgently de-escalate the situation, as the UN Security Council and G7 ministers emphasized on April 5. This unilateral military campaign against Tripoli is endangering civilians and undermining prospects for a better future for all Libyans.

There is no military solution to the Libya conflict. This is why the United States continues to press Libyan leaders, together with our international partners, to return to political negotiations mediated by UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General Ghassan Salame. A political solution is the only way to unify the country and provide a plan for security, stability, and prosperity for all Libyans."

Very strange ...
For one thing, the UN is called superfluous and obsolete, and the US wants to do away with it ... then suddenly it's a useful tool.

The Trump government makes more cornering than a roller coaster!

 

No, they're not. Middle Eastern oil has been mostly nationalized for generations.

Because Eurasia has been destabilizing for 30 years, partially with our help.

Or do you need a more specific answer?

Because the Persian Gulf is a geopolitical flashpoint.

You want to try and prove that claim? The Saudis were very uncomfortable with the American invasion of Iraq. The Kuwaitis may be a different story, but we certainly weren't acting "at their behest."

We're not the only geopolitical actor, and Israel is only tangentially related to Gulf security.

 

The ability of European governments to interact with institutions inside Libya has been key in stemming the tide of immigration from Africa into Europe, and increasing this interaction has been one of the options eyed by politicians in countries like Italy and France. Almost as important is the fact that a Libyan Civil War has the potential of destabilizing Egypt, an event that would almost necessitate American military action, at least insofar as keeping the Suez open and safe.

Nobody cared about Syria either, until we watched the dominoes fall. Whether you're pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit, you must recognize that it would not have happened if not for the Syrian Civil War.

But you're American, not European. The truth is, you only have to care about Libya a little bit. Things are quite different for an Italian.

 

Very excellent reply.

Maybe I should care about Libya then.

Thank you for the intelligent and very well formed post.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree!

Gaddafi was a declared enemy of the US for known reasons. Then he had made his peace with the US so far and in return gave up his atomic ambitions.
Of course, for whatever reason, France under Sakorzy was the driving force behind the support of the insurgents, and they were followed very willingly by the US and UK ... along with others such as Qatar!
Of course Gaddafi was without question a disgusting bastard and bloodthirsty dictator, but conversely, everyone in the coalition against Gaddafi did not give a **** about who they were supporting against Gaddafi in Lybia.
Of course, there were also honorable and by our standards fully democratically minded Aufstädnische ... but there was also a pile of scum at various terrorist organizations and sub-organizations, which were also and witty way, especially supported by the US and Qatar.
Also, my country has to put up with a legitimate, critical question, such as about 36,000 assault rifles from Heckler & Koch type G-36 without visible serial number (which is lasered today, which is easy to remove for experts) came to Libya and there to the Terrorist scum of various orientations!

I still remember a TV report when shortto Gaddafi's death, Sarkozy flew to Lybia, and in the background, and you could see 2 or 3 C-130 Hercules of Qatar Air Force in the background.
In another report, shortly thereafter, one of the most questionable jihadists (at least he was / became an Al Qaida leader later) was seen on TV as he thanked his brothers from Qatar in a new uniform. Strange, eh?

Worse, as soon as Gaddafi was dead, everyone involved was "mission accomplished", the group one liked was declared a government and finished ... the rest should be cleared up by the Lybians, we do not care!

To say that the US is not a concern and only the affected or once involved Europeans is so wrong ... it is the US as much to clean up the mess also made by the US.

 

1. They want to refine it and sell it that is where the money is.
2. Exactly- it is our fault.
3. Saudi was scared of hussein eying their wealth. Iraq had a much bigger army than the kingdom. There was no doubt in my mind that after kurwait fell the kingdom was next.

4. SA may have publically "uncomfortable" in 2003 but not in Desert Storm.

 

Does your historical understanding of the ME and it's oil reserves start with the invasion of Iraq? There are many Arab factions who have always been against Arab countries profitting off of oil since way back when oil was discovered in the ME by the British.

https://www.wired.com/2008/05/dayintech-0526/

__1908: __A British company strikes oil in Persia (now Iran). It's the first big petroleum find in the Middle East, and it sets off a wave of exploration, extraction and exploitation that will change the region's – and the world's – history.

 

It happens.

Okay, so far we agree.

Probably not true. Western countries are uncomfortable with supporting rebel forces that are hard to distinguish from Al-Qaeda. That's why, for example, our support for rebels in Syria shifted away from Sunni Arabs and towards Kurds.

Oh finally, a disagreement.

Okay, so you believe that there is a moral imperative to "see things through" once involvement has began. I think that's completely silly. The idea that the United States can do anything at all beyond destabilize and cause harm is a debatable idea. What do you think we should do, support the Tripoli government against Haftar? I'm not completely against the idea, a victory by Haftar makes the Americans look weak. But what kind of support? I would be in favor of lending our air and intelligence capabilities in the fight against Haftar.

Anyways, I do want to note that you're only accidentally disagreeing with me. In speaking to Spooky I was making the following point: While the destabilization of Libya will have some effect on the United States, it's not the kind of effect that individual Americans need to care about. It will, at most, necessitate the limited use of American forces much as we've seen in Syria. And I can tell you, if I wasn't involved in politics I would have no reason at all to care about Syria. But I'm American, you're European. You know that you have to care about Syria. A fundamental difference between us is that we're over here, and you're over there.