PDA

View Full Version : Sudan invades Libya?


MeMyselfAndI
Jul 7th 2011, 09:08 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html

Sudanese army seizes southern Libyan town

The Sudanese army has seized a town in southern Libya that is the gateway to oilfields crucial to rebel hopes of establishing financial independence.



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01768/McElroy_60_1768764j.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/Damien_McElroy/)
By Damien McElroy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/Damien_McElroy/), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
10:21PM BST 01 Jul 2011


Officials overseeing the no-fly zone enforced by Nato over Libya said the Sudanese move north of border had not encountered resistance from troops loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi.

Since the February uprising against his regime, the Libyan leader's forces have been concentrated around Tripoli, the capital; Sirte, the eastern town that is Col Gaddafi's birthplace and Sebha, the desert outpost where the dictator grew up.

Officials said control of the town of Kufra and nearby military base granted the Sudanese a key strategic foothold between the regime and the opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) which holds the eastern seaboard and a series of rebel enclaves.

The Sudanese have not disrupted efforts to resume oil production on nearby southern oilfields.

"Our surveillance shows that they are not moving oil, so its not about money in the short term," said one Western official. "The commercial oil companies monitoring is reporting that there has been no movement of oil out of Libya.

But the Sudanese clearly now have a stake in Libya re-emerging in the oil market.
"The Gaddafi army was coming in and taking out the oilfields every time the rebels start pumping oil. They've dismantled the fields quite carefully so the rebels need security down there. Clearly there needs to be tribal support but the Sudanese could make it too risky for Gaddafi's intervention as well."
The last attack on the Mislah and Sarir oilfields took place on June 12, just days before the deployment of Sudanese forces to Kufra.
Rebel spokesmen said they hoped to produce up to 250,000 barrels per day from the oilfields and pump it along a pipeline to the Marsa al-Haringa depot near Tobruk.
Hundreds of Chadian refugees were this week reported to have fled Kufra to the Gaddafi-controlled town of Sebha.
An assessment team from the International Organisation for Migration issued an appeal for 2,000 Chadians fleeing violence across Libya to be provided a safe route home.
"There has been a lot of fighting in the Kufra area and people have decided to make their way to safer stations on the road home," said Qasim Sufi, the IOM team leader in Sirte.
British officials in Benghazi have worked closely with Libyan rebels on resuming oil pumping. Tribal leaders told a British team on May 12 that a brigade of fighters would be formed from Jalu and Kufra to protect oil infrastructure in the south.
Mustafa al-Sagezli, the deputy leader of the oil infrastructure force known as the February 17th Martyrs command, has said that pumping oil north through the pipeline can resume within weeks.
Mazen Ramadan, a financial adviser to the Transistional National Council, yesterday said the opposition was facing a cash crisis that had left it unable to pay for imports or meet salaries for its employees.
It wants its western backers to advance loans against the vast Libyan state funds frozen in US and European bank accounts.
Rebels gained access to a $100 million (£62 million) financing arrangement this week but that money has mainly been spent on medicines and basic needs.
Altogether $1 billion (£620 million) has been pledged to the (TNC) but most of the money has not been handed over.
Without oil sales, the opposition complain their administration is incapable of battling Gaddafi and running the rebel safehavens. "We don't have any money. We are working with a lot of people but it seems like a time-consuming process, and we need the money," Mr Ramadan said. "We proposed a mechanism to perhaps get loans on the frozen assets and then use this mechanism to ensure transparency."
A summit in Istanbul next month will be dominated by legal negotiations on releasing Libya reserves frozen by United Nations sanctions.


Do you think Al-Bashir is trying to help Qaddafi by cutting the rebels oil supplies?

Donkey
Jul 7th 2011, 09:21 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html



Do you think Al-Bashir is trying to help Qaddafi by cutting the rebels oil supplies?

I doubt he's trying to help anyone but himself.

Edit: don't forget that the main oil regions in Southern Sudan are currently in the process of seceding.

MeMyselfAndI
Jul 7th 2011, 09:25 PM
I doubt he's trying to help anyone but himself.

Edit: don't forget that the main oil regions in Southern Sudan are currently in the process of seceding.

Okay, true. But, if the Sudanese military now enters into this conflict, what does that mean for NATO involvement. Will your forces attack the Sudanese army same as you attack Qaddafi's? Will they be treated as a third party, a neutral participant; or an additional enemy?

Donkey
Jul 7th 2011, 09:26 PM
Okay, true. But, if the Sudanese military now enters into this conflict, what does that mean for NATO involvement. Will your forces attack the Sudanese army same as you attack Qaddafi's? Will they be treated as a third party, a neutral participant; or an additional enemy?

Good questions.

Who the FUCK knows? :shrug:

MeMyselfAndI
Jul 7th 2011, 09:35 PM
Good questions.

Who the FUCK knows? :shrug:

Good answer :lol:

It is a mess... I think NATO should never have gotten involved there. I'll tell you what will happen: this will pull you guys in more and more, until you have no choice but to send in ground forces, and that would be a lot worse than Iraq or even Afghan, because here, you would not know who your friend or foe is (you think all rebels would want a foreign occupation?), you'd be fired at from every point, plus, do not forget, you have highly trained 'foreign mercenaries' fighting for Qaddafi, these not rag headed Taliban boys, I am talking about former Belarusian specnaz fighters, Serbian special forces, who knows who else. Highly trained, well-armed men, tough as nails.

That would be a fight, big, bloody one. And you, my American, Canadian, and European friends would lose many of your good sons. Why? What for? War is shit. That is how my grandfather, a Great Patriotic War (WWII) veteran puts it... But his generation, they fought because they had to. in his case, on their land, for their land. But then, later... Afghan? It is stupid, go to some alien soil looking for a fight, looking for death? Why?????????

Donkey
Jul 7th 2011, 09:38 PM
Good answer :lol:

It is a mess... I think NATO should never have gotten involved there. I'll tell you what will happen: this will pull you guys in more and more, until you have no choice but to send in ground forces, and that would be a lot worse than Iraq or even Afghan, because here, you would not know who your friend or foe is (you think all rebels would want a foreign occupation?), you'd be fired at from every point, plus, do not forget, you have highly trained 'foreign mercenaries' fighting for Qaddafi, these not rag headed Taliban boys, I am talking about former Belarusian specnaz fighters, Serbian special forces, who knows who else. Highly trained, well-armed men, tough as nails.

That would be a fight, big, bloody one. And you, my American, Canadian, and European friends would lose many of your good sons. Why? What for? War is shit. That is how my grandfather, a Great Patriotic War (WWII) veteran puts it... But his generation, they fought because they had to. in his case, on their land, for their land. But then, later... Afghan? It is stupid, go to some alien soil looking for a fight, looking for death? Why?????????

Well, I'm the wrong guy to answer any of those questions. I'm not a militarism apologist. Never have been. We shouldn't be involved in any of the wars that we are.

Greendruid
Jul 7th 2011, 10:57 PM
Good answer :lol:

It is a mess... I think NATO should never have gotten involved there. I'll tell you what will happen: this will pull you guys in more and more, until you have no choice but to send in ground forces, and that would be a lot worse than Iraq or even Afghan, because here, you would not know who your friend or foe is (you think all rebels would want a foreign occupation?), you'd be fired at from every point, plus, do not forget, you have highly trained 'foreign mercenaries' fighting for Qaddafi, these not rag headed Taliban boys, I am talking about former Belarusian specnaz fighters, Serbian special forces, who knows who else. Highly trained, well-armed men, tough as nails.

That would be a fight, big, bloody one. And you, my American, Canadian, and European friends would lose many of your good sons. Why? What for? War is shit. That is how my grandfather, a Great Patriotic War (WWII) veteran puts it... But his generation, they fought because they had to. in his case, on their land, for their land. But then, later... Afghan? It is stupid, go to some alien soil looking for a fight, looking for death? Why?????????

I agree whole-heartedly with your wise grandfather. My uncle who was in the same war said basically the same thing. Many of these types of conflict seem to me to be about driving the economy here. War creates jobs for the advantaged.

NickKIELCEPoland
Jul 8th 2011, 03:02 AM
I agree with MeMyselfandI, Donkey and Greendruid.

Michael
Jul 8th 2011, 05:42 PM
Good answer :lol:

It is a mess... I think NATO should never have gotten involved there. I'll tell you what will happen: this will pull you guys in more and more, until you have no choice but to send in ground forces, and that would be a lot worse than Iraq or even Afghan, because here, you would not know who your friend or foe is (you think all rebels would want a foreign occupation?), you'd be fired at from every point, plus, do not forget, you have highly trained 'foreign mercenaries' fighting for Qaddafi, these not rag headed Taliban boys, I am talking about former Belarusian specnaz fighters, Serbian special forces, who knows who else. Highly trained, well-armed men, tough as nails.

As far as I know, Arabic Iraqi-war veterans are the backbone of the 'rebel' army.

And I certainly agree - this is the stupidest move from NATO ever. This stupid war-game is quite likely to politically destroy NATO itself. I certainly will never trust/support NATO on anything anymore.

As for ground wars, they are only a problem because most western countries don't want to fight them the way they need to be fought. If the will is there, then Libya is toast - regardless of how many mercenaries that are sent in. Mercenaries are always a sign of weakness and a major vulnerability that is easy to exploit. Only the losing side employs mercenaries. History supplies lots of evidence of this going back many centuries.

But the will is not there to fight some silly war in North Africa - so it won't happen unless the USA wants to send in their army - no one else is that stupid.

That would be a fight, big, bloody one. And you, my American, Canadian, and European friends would lose many of your good sons. Why? What for? War is shit. That is how my grandfather, a Great Patriotic War (WWII) veteran puts it... But his generation, they fought because they had to. in his case, on their land, for their land. But then, later... Afghan? It is stupid, go to some alien soil looking for a fight, looking for death? Why?????????
There is zero chance of any NATO troops in Libya (except perhaps French or Americans). No one else would (or could) do that.

Michael
Jul 8th 2011, 05:45 PM
War creates jobs for the advantaged.

Not true. War creates massive profits for politically well connected defense contractors (and their shareholders).

It doesn't actually create jobs.

Zarquon
Jul 9th 2011, 05:53 AM
Not true. War creates massive profits for politically well connected defense contractors (and their shareholders).

It doesn't actually create jobs.
How do you explain the 1.2% US unemployment rate in 1944? (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html)
A sufficiently large or total war would generate jobs.

Michael
Jul 9th 2011, 08:44 AM
How do you explain the 1.2% US unemployment rate in 1944? (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html)
A sufficiently large or total war would generate jobs.

I should have been more clear. Contemporary US war ops like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya do not create much in the way of civilian jobs.

Americano
Jul 9th 2011, 10:41 AM
I should have been more clear. Contemporary US war ops like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya do not create much in the way of civilian jobs.

Contemporary US interventionist involvement is designed on what I call the bogeyman platform. Communism (Vietnam), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), al-Qaeda (Afghanistan), dictatorial oppression (Libya) and who knows what's next all keep the US war machine humming right along where 'defense' contractors deliver the cash to politicians, a heavily unionized work force delivers the votes for those politicians, dividend investors enjoy proceeds relatively unaffected by the general economy and enlisted military enjoy incomes far above their civilian counterpart education/skill sets. The MIC is a formidable force with seemingly unrestricted public funding.

Michael
Jul 10th 2011, 09:51 AM
Contemporary US interventionist involvement is designed on what I call the bogeyman platform. Communism (Vietnam), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), al-Qaeda (Afghanistan), dictatorial oppression (Libya) and who knows what's next all keep the US war machine humming right along where 'defense' contractors deliver the cash to politicians, a heavily unionized work force delivers the votes for those politicians, dividend investors enjoy proceeds relatively unaffected by the general economy and enlisted military enjoy incomes far above their civilian counterpart education/skill sets. The MIC is a formidable force with seemingly unrestricted public funding.

Yes, the MIC is well established in the USA. My point is that these foreign adventures don't actually add more jobs to the economy - they only stand as political justifications for the existing MIC complex (and extra fat profits for MIC shareholders).

Americano
Jul 10th 2011, 10:14 AM
Yes, the MIC is well established in the USA. My point is that these foreign adventures don't actually add more jobs to the economy - they only stand as political justifications for the existing MIC complex (and extra fat profits for MIC shareholders).

Agreed, no increase in jobs, just perpetuation of the political corruption process that sustains the MIC.