Gaddafi forces shell rebel positions

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 18:59:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Dezi, you might want to go to the Market Talk forum, and look at the Libya thread. It is a long one, some posts great, some not so great.
Be careful though, you think this audience is tough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Thanks I will after the game, possible manana actually...

I'll take your advice, just be a fly on the wall..one of these is enough, trust me..two? One would need their head examined..

[Value Buy]

Onn Cnn tonight, Anderson Cooper 360 is eporting the UN is now targeting Gadahfi, directly, so they can bring the conflict to a close.

President Obama on March 28th stated they would not try to remove him thru direct bombing.
Things are changing fast, but he is head of a state government, and I find it appalling we are now targeting leaders of nations for death, and it is being done through the UN, of all places.
I guess no one will be brought up for Crimes against world leaders.
Osama Bin Laden was one thing, but this is not right,imo.

[billisonboard]

Jun 9, 2011 21:22:23 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Onn Cnn tonight, Anderson Cooper 360 is eporting the UN is now targeting Gadahfi, directly, so they can bring the conflict to a close.

President Obama on March 28th stated they would not try to remove him thru direct bombing.
Things are changing fast, but he is head of a state government, and I find it appalling we are now targeting leaders of nations for death, and it is being done through the UN, of all places.
I guess no one will be brought up for Crimes against world leaders.
Osama Bin Laden was one thing, but this is not right,imo.

[deziloooooo]

With the cost of the Coalition forces escalating, the inability to get more coalition countries to increase their commitment to Gaddafis overthrow, there is discussion to tap the frozen Libyan funds, estimated to be $45 Billion, $35 Billion In the US alone.

Gaddafi's wealth is suggested at One trillion, most hidden in the desert of Libya, and the coalition , in misinterpreting his, Gaddafi's support and resiliency staying power, the action is taking longer then expected. It was thought it would be over quicker and the wealth hidden away would be turned over to the new government of Libya used to rebuild the country.

I brought that use of the frozen funds to help fund the coalition forces up a while ago, it isn't as if this is a poor country, no assets or resources, there is all that oil. It's just that the oil wealth does not get to the average Libyan, and I feel if there is some ones protecting them and helping as the coalition is, with out, Gaddafi would have been in complete control and the uprising put down, with great casualties, to pay their fare share to me is only fair.

This article really sums up very well all the in's and out's of this action taking place in Libya, including the politics of it, many, Russia's anger at the coalition and puts to rest many of th questions of why taking so long, the coalitions thoughts as to the time line of it for those wondering what is really going on here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.debka.com/article/21008/
-----------------------------------------------------
[Click on link to read article]
-----------------------------------------------------
Moscow opposes Western anti-Syrian motions because of Tripoli bombing

DEBKAfile Special Report June 9, 2011, 5:56 PM (GMT+02:00)

Russia is opposed to any UN Security Council resolution on Syria," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told journalists at a briefing in Moscow Thursday, June 29, after the UK, France, Germany and Portugal moved to condemn Syria's violent crackdown on anti-government protesters
and demand humanitarian access to the situation there.

The new resolution demands that President Bashar Assad end the violence and lifts the siege of protest cities. It also calls for an arms embargo on Syria.US Ambassador Susan Rice, who did not co-sponsor the draft, dismissed the comparison between Syria and Libya.

Wednesday, June 8, the NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels failed to agree on the expansion of operations against Muammar Qaddafi or persuade more alliance members to join.
debkafile's military sources add:

The cost of the war in Libya is constantly rising and beginning to weigh heavily on the defense outlay and state budgets of the US, Britain and France, all of which are battling deep economic crises. Our sources learn that the three governments are contemplating dipping into the frozen funds of Muammar Qaddafi's regime estimated at over $45 billion - possibly $34 billion in American banks alone – to defray some of the costs.

The relentless air strikes over Tripoli alone cost about $25 million per day.

The use of those funds will be presented as necessary to relieve the hardships of the Libyan population living under rebel rule and suffering attacks from Qaddafi's forces.
In a statement issued on Thursday morning, June 9 (Wednesday night in the US), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Tim Johnson said, "The ongoing violence in Libya has disrupted the economy and left far too many innocent Libyan citizens struggling to simply put food on the table."

debkafile's military and intelligence sources say the coalition ran into financial difficulties because they missed realistically evaluating Qaddafi's financial, military and political strength before launching operations against him in March"

[deziloooooo]

Latest from alJazeera..the rebels seem to be making gains in areas of Libya against Gaddafis forces..trying to close the ring and get closer to the capital , Tripoli, where he and his supporters are thought to be in residence. Coalition air still active in the capital area, hitting areas near his compound.
The house vote in US legislature to cut off funding for the US activity is going to the Senate..if up held that might be it as far as US involvement, not sure what the legals are here, but the Senate is different then the House , majority is Republicans there, so we will have to see what transpires..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/06/2011614133151319133.html
----------------------------------------
[Cklick on link to read the article]
----------------------------------------
Africa

Libyan rebels make fresh advances

Pro-democracy fighters gain ground on government troops in the west and east of the country, wresting the town of Kikla.


"Fighting has been going on between Gaddafi troops and opposition forces on several fronts in Libya [Reuters]

Pro-democracy fighters have made fresh advances in both the east and the west of Libya, gaining ground against forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, reports say.

In the west, the fighters managed to to force government troops into retreat from the town of Kikla, about 150km southwest of the capital, Tripoli, on Tuesday, news agencies said.

And in the east, they launched more attacks against Gaddafi forces near the oil town of Brega, where fighting on Monday killed at least 25 fighters and wounded dozens more.

The wounded were transferred to a hospital in Ajdabiya, 160km south of Benghazi, the de facto capital of the rebels who have been fighting to overthrow Gaddafi since mid-February.

The rebels have spent months trying to seize the strategic oil hub of Brega, which would open the road to Sirte, the Libyan leader's home town, and from there to Tripoli.

Strategic town

Brega boasts an important oil refinery which, once operational, could supply the east of the country with much-needed fuel to produce electricity.

Youssef Boudlal, a Reuters photographer, said that pro-Gaddafi forces had retreated to positions about 9km from the town of Kikla.

The rebels were in control of the town and were setting up defensive positions in case of a counterattack, Boudlal said.



The push by the rebels came as the US House of Representatives voted to stop funding military operations in Libya.


Monday's motion still requires senate approval, but it shows a growing disapproval of US involvement in Libya.

A number of members of congress have expressed their dissatisfaction at Barack Obama's decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorisation.

According to US law, the president must seek congressional authorisation to send US troops into combat and must withdraw the forces within 60 days if congress has not authorised the military action.

Shock for White House

Al Jazeera Patty Culhane, reporting from Manchester in New Hampshire state, said: "This is going to be a bit of a shock for Obama administration as the vote was so overwhelmingly against allowing him to use the fund in Libya."

[handyman2]

Value Buy the world has changed has it not. I am old enough to remember when taking out the leader of a nation was strictly off limits. We could toward the end of the war taken out the Emperor of Japan but those proposing it were told under no circumstances would that be allowed. And there were others where this was put forth and rejected.
It might cure the issue at the moment but to often the cure can turn out worse than the disease. whether you agree with a tyrant or not you do not want the perception that it is OK to have an open season on a leader of a nation.

[deziloooooo]

I think the reason was that they , the ones targeted , then would turn on your leaders.

I never understood that reasoning. If eliminating one person could basically win a war...so why not. When it comes to leaders who are despots..such as Gaddafi, seems he is the one in charge, though possible his sons might attempt to take his place, but then again they are younger, love the good life from all reports and might be more open for a accommodation, leave the country, take enough gold with them to live well rather then be targets themselves.

That our leaders might be under the gun..in retaliation, we have a pretty good way of succeeding leaders who are not able to continue in leadership for all types of reasons, none of our leaders are irreplaceable, it is the whole , the country that is what is important, that is a risk they take every day.

Some times it is better to let a leader stay in power. I am thinking of Hitler. I would say, if you examine the decisions he made starting with his decision to Invade the Soviet Union, actually before that one, having the Luftwaffe change their tactics from going after the Brits airfields and radar installations and to concentrate on the cities.

All because the Brits bombed a German City in retaliation after one of their , German bombers , accidently bombed by mistake London I believe. Up to that decision, they , Brits were on the ropes..radar was down, their airforce were just bout maxed out..air fields mostly in ruins..

He , Hitler, never made a good decision again, with his stupid orders, getting involved in things that were above his pay level if there was such a thing. If there was another leader there..who knows what would have happened in that conflict..IMHO

[ed1066]

Are the liberals still calling them "rebels"? LOL, is that the new name for the Muslim Brotherhood?

[deziloooooo]

Latest on Libya

[ damn value, had to back go and correct the name again, how about I just put up a L , will that get the intent of who across? ;D]


Anyway...latest from the area..Gaddafi's forces shelling the mountains trying to stop the rebels advances toward the capital, Tripoli, the good news are the coalition commander sees no need for coalition ground troops at this time to accomplish the mission, which he said is not "Regime change", which to me is somewhat confusing..more and more nations are saying the rebel coalition is being recognized as speaking for the Government, yet you have gaddafi still there...yet they re saying Regime change is not on the agenda.
Is this politic speak? ..say one thing but do actions that basically go against the politic speak..mmmm, to deep for this one, any one have a clue as to how to interpret these comments.
In trying to read between the lines, I get the feeling gaddafi's forces are getting stretched thin..while they still have heavy weapons that the Rebels do not..this firing into the hills seems to be a act of desperation, causing few casualties, except by luck, doesn't seem to be aimed fire at specific targets, fire laid on by FO adjusting fire on military targets to disrupt and cause military damage, more like firing shot gun blasts into the air hoping to hit a duck who might be flying by ..more like if it causes some damage, it's a

"oops, hey I'll take that, not sure what it means in the big picture though"
IMHO anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------
english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/2011615133337553660.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaddafi forces shell rebel positions in bid to thwart rebels advancing towards capital, Tripoli.

15 Jun 2011 14:30


Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, have shelled rebel positions in the western mountains, after opposition fighters edged closer to the capital on three fronts.

A rebel spokesman in the town of Nalut said there were no casualties from the shelling on Wednesday.

"Gaddafi's forces bombarded Nalut ... Over 20 Grad rockets landed in the town. They bombarded from their positions ... around 20km east of Nalut," he said, adding that they had also shelled the Wazin-Dehiba Tunisia border crossing.

The rebels have made advances in key areas in recent days but still have to overcome heavy odds if they are to successfully march on Gaddafi's well-defended territory.


The rebels said NATO leaflets warning of helicopter strikes had prevented them from pushing towards Zlitan, and had prompted some rebels to retreat from their newly-captured positions about 10km outside the city, towards their base in Misurata, east of Tripoli.

A NATO official said the alliance dropped the leaflets west of Misurata, and closer to Zlitan. A Reuters news agency correspondent in Misurata said there were no further advances towards Zlitan on Wednesday.

NATO war planes bombed Tripoli, the capital, on Tuesday night, causing loud explosions that filled the sky with plumes of smoke, but there were no further reports of bombing on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, the rebels tried to advance in the east, setting their sights on the oil town of Brega to extend their control over the region, epicentre of the four-month rebellion against Gaddafi's four-decade rule.

In a sign that Gaddafi's forces may be getting stretched, the rebels seized the town of Kikla, 150km southwest of Tripoli.

'No ground forces needed'

The push by the rebels came as the NATO commander heading the Libya operations said that the alliance's mission "can be completed without the use of ground troops".

Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard also said that the military situation in western Libya was developing "very positively".

"I do believe we can complete the mission without bringing in ground troops," the Canadian general told reporters off Libyan shores on the Garibaldi, the flagship for NATO's maritime embargo on Libya.


Click here for more of Al Jazeera's special coverage
"My view is that this operation has clear support from the North Atlantic council and we are receiving adequate assets to complete the mission and carry out our mandate," he said, adding: "We don't have a mandate for regime change."

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary-general, was set to meet with David Cameron, the British prime minister, and William Hague, the foreign secretary, later on Wednesday for talks on the three-month military operation.

Senior military officials from Britain and France, key players in the NATO campaign, had earlier expressed concerns about how to maintain the NATO operation, just extended for three months from June 27.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, last week issued a stinging rebuke to NATO allies, warning their reliance on US military might is putting the Libya mission and the alliance's very future at risk."
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The push by the rebels came as the NATO commander heading the Libya operations said that the alliance's mission "can be completed without the use of ground troops".