Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
So we now know who's side they are on.
18 Answers
http://www.guardian.c...-africa-libyan-assets
/// South Africa's Jacob Zuma has argued the Libyan crisis is the latest example of Africa being shown a lack of respect by the rest of the world, by his refusal to unfreeze $1.5bn of Libyan assets and recognise Libya's rebel authority.///
Are the South Africans correct in their decision?
/// South Africa's Jacob Zuma has argued the Libyan crisis is the latest example of Africa being shown a lack of respect by the rest of the world, by his refusal to unfreeze $1.5bn of Libyan assets and recognise Libya's rebel authority.///
Are the South Africans correct in their decision?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Many situations have no obvious right or wrong. IMO the conflict is now in the final stages and an argument can be made to unfreeze the assets, but if S. Africa does not wish to be seen to be taking sides at this stage, that is a reasonable stance to take. I'm sure it is just a question of time, after all the hostilities haven't fully ended yet.
-- answer removed --
Suth Africa may be reluctant to give it back because they know we are plundering Libya.
// But how do we pay for such a war? We are already at war with Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya and the common link is not oil but gold. The financial backers of NATO will now share out the plunder – all 144 tons of Gold Bullion that has been removed from Libya. I’ll do the maths for you – 144 metric tons is 4629707.476 troy ounces and at todays fix price of £1049.59 per troy ounce, that’s roughly £4,859,294,669 and 74p. Stolen by us, from them. //
// But how do we pay for such a war? We are already at war with Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya and the common link is not oil but gold. The financial backers of NATO will now share out the plunder – all 144 tons of Gold Bullion that has been removed from Libya. I’ll do the maths for you – 144 metric tons is 4629707.476 troy ounces and at todays fix price of £1049.59 per troy ounce, that’s roughly £4,859,294,669 and 74p. Stolen by us, from them. //
Perhaps they just find it difficult to keep up with current thinking re Gadaffi? First he's a 'baddie', then he's a 'goodie' now he's once again a 'baddie'! Ever thought whether we would give a dam about Libya if they didn't happen to have oil? We should just keep our sticky beaks out of it the same as we do with other oppressed people who don't have the magic black stuff.
Jacob Zuma did try to offer a peace deal with Gaddafi but NATO would have none of it and continued to bomb. Somehow in the West it seems that only us can sort out the world's problems. Unfortunately we are just war-mongers who use superior force to get our own way.
Hardly without mention in the news is that Russia has brokered a deal with North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons. This was done by negotiation with the Russians and not using the iron fist.
Hardly without mention in the news is that Russia has brokered a deal with North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons. This was done by negotiation with the Russians and not using the iron fist.
"
"rov1100
Jacob Zuma did try to offer a peace deal with Gaddafi but NATO would have none of it and continued to bomb. Somehow in the West it seems that only us can sort out the world's problems. Unfortunately we are just war-mongers who use superior force to get our own way."
"Hardly without mention in the news is that Russia has brokered a deal with North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons. This was done by negotiation with the Russians and not using the iron fist."
No, they haven't. Kim Il Sung has gone to Ulan Ude to meet President Medvedev because he is absolutely desperate for help for his impoverished country. It's very good that the Russians and North Koreans are having this dialogue, but it's only potentially the start of 6-party talks about reducing nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are Kim's main bargaining tool with the outside world.
Good old Jacob Zuma, eh? Actually I don't think he IS on the side of Gaddafi, far from it, but he is exhibiting an inferiority complex, perhaps understandable, on the part of many African leaders, vis-a-vis "the West". He hates the thought that the Libyan people might need a hand from non-African countries to liberate them from a tyrant. Really, his attitude is just grandstanding, perhaps partly motivated by the fact that he knows that western intervention in Libya was very unpopular in his own country.
Lots of things were offered to Gaddafi by lots of people, but the only ones in a real position to negotiate with him were the rebels, whose only demand was that he get out. It wasn't up to South Africa, Russia, France, the UK or anyone else to do anything other than offer advice. If you remember, Gaddafi called a unilateral ceasefire when the no-fly zone was created, except that he forgot to implement it. He has blustered, bullied, lied and ranted his way through the conflict but all the way through his own people have persistently and bravely fought against him.
"rov1100
Jacob Zuma did try to offer a peace deal with Gaddafi but NATO would have none of it and continued to bomb. Somehow in the West it seems that only us can sort out the world's problems. Unfortunately we are just war-mongers who use superior force to get our own way."
"Hardly without mention in the news is that Russia has brokered a deal with North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons. This was done by negotiation with the Russians and not using the iron fist."
No, they haven't. Kim Il Sung has gone to Ulan Ude to meet President Medvedev because he is absolutely desperate for help for his impoverished country. It's very good that the Russians and North Koreans are having this dialogue, but it's only potentially the start of 6-party talks about reducing nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are Kim's main bargaining tool with the outside world.
Good old Jacob Zuma, eh? Actually I don't think he IS on the side of Gaddafi, far from it, but he is exhibiting an inferiority complex, perhaps understandable, on the part of many African leaders, vis-a-vis "the West". He hates the thought that the Libyan people might need a hand from non-African countries to liberate them from a tyrant. Really, his attitude is just grandstanding, perhaps partly motivated by the fact that he knows that western intervention in Libya was very unpopular in his own country.
Lots of things were offered to Gaddafi by lots of people, but the only ones in a real position to negotiate with him were the rebels, whose only demand was that he get out. It wasn't up to South Africa, Russia, France, the UK or anyone else to do anything other than offer advice. If you remember, Gaddafi called a unilateral ceasefire when the no-fly zone was created, except that he forgot to implement it. He has blustered, bullied, lied and ranted his way through the conflict but all the way through his own people have persistently and bravely fought against him.
Straw man argument AOG
There would indeed have been an outcry - indeed that was their mandate
But that wasn't what they did was it?
They directly attacked his forces and infrastructure and assisted the rebels when there was no direct threat to civillians.
They persued a policy of regieme change despite what their mandate actually said.
They had co-operation from the Arab League - they are unlikely to get it again
There would indeed have been an outcry - indeed that was their mandate
But that wasn't what they did was it?
They directly attacked his forces and infrastructure and assisted the rebels when there was no direct threat to civillians.
They persued a policy of regieme change despite what their mandate actually said.
They had co-operation from the Arab League - they are unlikely to get it again
"It is amazing to witness the change in attitude of some ABers regarding the UK's involvement in Libya.
There would have been an almighty outcry from some, if Britain had not joined NATO in taking action to save Libyan civilians from being raped and slaughtered by Gadaffi's forces."
We won't ever agree on much I suspect AOG, but I'm with you on this.
Sometimes I despair of people's cynicism.
I suspect that many who, understandably, ask why can we not help to oust, say, Mugabe or Assad, would be the first to shout if we did.
It seems certain that NATO DID outdo its UN mandate (tho if you look at the wording of the UN resolution, in particular "take all necessary measures,
... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" it's open to pretty broad interpretation.
Personally, I say, good for them.
As for the Arab League, we shouldn't confuse what leaders say in public with what they do and say in private. The vast majority of the Arab league members, if not all, hated Gaddafi and are delighted he's gone.
There would have been an almighty outcry from some, if Britain had not joined NATO in taking action to save Libyan civilians from being raped and slaughtered by Gadaffi's forces."
We won't ever agree on much I suspect AOG, but I'm with you on this.
Sometimes I despair of people's cynicism.
I suspect that many who, understandably, ask why can we not help to oust, say, Mugabe or Assad, would be the first to shout if we did.
It seems certain that NATO DID outdo its UN mandate (tho if you look at the wording of the UN resolution, in particular "take all necessary measures,
... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" it's open to pretty broad interpretation.
Personally, I say, good for them.
As for the Arab League, we shouldn't confuse what leaders say in public with what they do and say in private. The vast majority of the Arab league members, if not all, hated Gaddafi and are delighted he's gone.
"So, shall we go and save the beleagered citizens of Syria?
They have no oil, so the good folk of Damascus shouldn't hold their breath. "
The beleaguered citizens of Freetown and Pristina had no oil.
What would "we" do anyway? A no-fly zone? But the Syrians aren't, so far as I know, bombing anyone. A bombing campaign? Perhaps, but you'd need a UN resolution for that, even were it to be of any value, and there is absolutely no chance of one, given they can't even agree on sanctions. An invasion? Be honest, would you support that?
They have no oil, so the good folk of Damascus shouldn't hold their breath. "
The beleaguered citizens of Freetown and Pristina had no oil.
What would "we" do anyway? A no-fly zone? But the Syrians aren't, so far as I know, bombing anyone. A bombing campaign? Perhaps, but you'd need a UN resolution for that, even were it to be of any value, and there is absolutely no chance of one, given they can't even agree on sanctions. An invasion? Be honest, would you support that?
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
