Who thinks he is a misunderstood revolutionary? The point is to cause the least casualties and have a negotiated solution. The way that a cease fire could be enforced is through bombing any force of either side that broke the ceasefire. Gadaffi has also offered to have boots on the ground to monitor a cease fire. It might be difficult but not impossible. He certainly has motivation for keeping a ceasefire rather than suffer more and more weakening of his military powers and supply problems. In spite of all his monstrous qualities not long ago the Gadaffi regime was regarded as a good place for western investment and was buying arms from all those now attacking him. But he is no longer regarded as reliable not just because he threatened earlier to nationalise oil but because he changed the terms of PSAs to take more of the profits. Even worse he was threatening to sign more deals with China and thumb his nose at western oil companies: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/201141573222422175.html
----- Original Message ---- From: Dennis Redmond <metalslorg at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Fri, April 15, 2011 2:34:39 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] U.S. giving up on Libyan rebels
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:35 AM, ken hanly <northsunm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> hands. By not attempting even for force a cease fire on both sides the
> is ensuring the destruction keeps on going and going unless they can beat
> Gadaffi into submission.
How is the UN supposed to enforce a ceasefire against a monstrous regime which has financed and perpetrated pretty much even humanitarian atrocity ever invented, and is interested solely in its own absolute power and domination over the people of Libya?
Gaddafi is NOT some misunderstood revolutionary. He's just another cretinous petro-gangster who pumped out oil for First World corporations while starving his people of resources, all while pretending to be anti-US.
-- DRR ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk