₦airaland Forum

Which sanctions and how did they kill the Zimbabwe economy?

Simple questions.

Neither do these:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5xT-Ljepz0&NR=1

These guys don't have guns either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYtphwIC0U

Come on bobo.

First they weren't protesting and now you're saying that they may have been protesting but you don't know if they were carrying guns.

These guys aren't carrying guns.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSPkDIQFixI

KenGali:
Precisely my point man. That done was ensuring that Britain could not continue with threats of Sanctions that do not affect Mugabe, rather impoverish Zimbabweans just because Land was redistributed from White people.

Which sanctions that target impoverished people?

The only sanctions in place are those that target individuals like Mugabe and his cronies.

pleep:
At the beggining of the protests it was illegal for foriegn media to enter libya.

Ask yourself why outside news sources were banned.
Ask yourself why Gaddafi has blocked the internet.
Ask yourself why he has blocked mobile phone system.

If you don't have anything to hide, you do not do that. The assertion that it was to stop the rebels using propaganda is not logical. The Gadaffi propaganda machine is much more powerful and has over 40 years of experience. It could easily crush lies.

It didn't happen in Egypt. It didn't happen in Tunisia. The only other place it happened was in Iran when they also had something to hide.

KenGali:
At eve of the first UN security council vote on Libya, Britain sent in a Destroyer, while she had already evacuated a lot of her citizens. That ship left libya under the guise of Evacuating Foreigners. Since when did Britain start sending ships to evacuate just any foreigner from crisis, points.

Under the guise? The Destroyer evacuated British citizens. The UK navy has been used many times in history to evacuate it's citizens.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/navy_leaves_libya_with_evacuated_britons_1_2446713

http://www.africanews.com/site/list_message/33403

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son, Sayf al-Islam, has admitted the country's military over-reacted when dealing with protesters.

But, in a TV address broadcast as violence spread to Tripoli, he accused the opposition and Islamists of trying to break up the country.

He said troops had opened fire on protesters because they were not trained to handle civil unrest.

Do you think that all of these protestors would just give up if they weren't put down forcibly?

http://www.wikio.com/video/green-square-tripoli-libya---revolution-5074261

Aljazeera is not Western news.

And I would believe them over Libyan media. How many times did we hear that they had not killed civilians before they admitted to it? How many times did they say that they called a ceasefire whilst still bombarding civilians? What about the ridiculous accusation that the rebels are just Al Qaeda on hallucanegenic drugs?

Libyan media has been caught lying time and time again. Why would I believe them over numerous other news sources in the West and elsewhere in the Middle East?

The African mercenary stories were always commenced with the words "reportedly". They were never stated as fact. And the truth is that Gadaffi does use mercenaries. He has hundreds of men from Chad in his army. Also, past history bears it out. Look up "Islamic Legion".

Lakode. You don't need videos. Gadaffi's own son admitted on Libyan National TV that troops killed unarmed protesters.
His excuse was that they were poorly trained and scared.

Amahatu.

The fact that Russia and China did not vote formally means that they were not for or against military action.

But what it really means is that they gave the green light for the No-Fly zone. If they didn't want it, they could easily said No.

You cannot compare Iraq. There was no UN vote giving the US permission to invade. In that case, they voted No.

The West is not killing masses of Libyan civilians.
The first night, 110 missiles were launched. This was an absolute necessity to take out Gadaffi's anti-aircraft missile sites and command centres.
Last night, only 11 missiles were launched. Again at non-civilian targets. The strike against his palace was also to take out a personal command centre. Or do you think that he travels across Tripoli to give orders?

You can bet that tonight, even less will be launched as the No-Fly zone has been established.

Figures for civillian casualties have been supplied by the Libyan regime. In all wars where the enemy is trying to use propaganda, they overstate their casualties to garner support.
The real truth is that the Gaddafi regime has probably killed hundreds of times more civilians than any Western airstrikes.

You really are clueless.

France only gets 15% of it's oil from Libya. Most of it comes from Norway, Saudi Arabia and Russia.  
13% for Spain.
Libyan oil accounts for 20% of Italy's imports and that's primarily because it's only separated from Libya by a few miles of sea.
Hardly a "need" and nowhere near the ludicrous 40% figure that you claim.

Spain and Italy were hardly major voices when it came to the No-Fly zone were they? And even if Berlusconi wanted a No-Fly zone, who's going to listen to him? He's so discredited, nobody cares what he's got to say. And yet again, Italy and the Gaddafi regime were on good terms. By calling for a No-Fly zone, Italy has jeopardised it's oil deals and it's imports.


If you're going to make claims, at least base them on fact.

The 40% figure you're giving for Italy is based on the Libyan export figure. Not the Italian import and consumption one. Libya exports 38% of her oil to Italy. It doesn't mean that it makes up 38% of the oil that Italy uses.
If you have 10 barrels of oil and I buy them all but I consume 10000 barrels a day, it doesn't matter that you supply me with 100% of your oil. You're just a small part of my import market.
Compare them to US imports and consumption though and Italy, Spain and France's figures are just about zero. Yet Libya isn't even in the top 20 suppliers for the US. Do you really think that the US would go to war for France, Italy and Spain in such circumstances? Especially when everyone is always stating about how the US only ever acts in it's own interests.

Yemen government is likely to fall.
Bahrain is a possibility.

The rest are unlikely. Countries like Syria, Iran, China, Vietnam and Venezuela have too big a security apparatus loyal to the state.

DeeJay20:
Please can you provide me with a youtube link showing mass libyans
marching peacefully in tripoli like the did in Eygpt and the Libyan
Military opening fire on them.

Note. I can show you a Youtube clip of 9 minutes where Bharanians
were protesting peacefully and the military opened fire and killed
people, and u will see the dead people,

i await your response,

Don't be so lazy. Use Google and you will find plenty of clips.

But you don't need to. I already told you that Gadaffi's son admitted that troops fired on unarmed protestors. Do you understand that? He did that on national Libyan TV. If he admitted that his troops shot unarmed protestors, it's futile you protesting that it didn't happen.

2ndThought:
@Bastage,

You don't really believe the above, do you?

Yes.

You use Mubarak as an example and that is precisely why I believe that my statement is correct.
You see, Mubarak and dictators like him are vestiges of the Cold War. They are of their day and are now out-dated. Not only are democracies more stable, but to replace one Libyan dictator with another will solve nothing as the people will still rebel, the situation remain unstable and oil prices still rise.

Bahrain and Yemen are a different story altogether. I am not one to defend US policy there but am merely stating that their situation is nothing to do with oil. The US uses those regimes to counter Iranian influence.

DeeJay20. And just who are the French, the Spanish and the Italians? Do you think that the US and UK would go to war on their behalf? You have no clue.

2ndThought. If the aim is to bring aabout Western influence, that can only be achieved by creating a stable, democratic Libya.
Therefore, it makes the whole aim morally justifiable.

I have to say I am not convinced that is the purpose though.

There can be no ground deployment.

Not only would it contradcit the specific UN resolution statement but Obama is facing re-election, Cameron is in a coalition government with the pacifist Liberal Democrat party and Sarkozy is so unpopular he would not be able to muster support for an invasion.

Western leaders may be as greedy and corrupt as those elsewhere but they are not stupid enough to commit political suicide.

Comparing this to Iraq is misleading. The bombing there was a prelude to a ground invasion and that's not the case here. Militarily, some infrastructure has to be reduced when preparing for a gorund invasion whereas in this case, it is not necessary.

As I have previously stated: the West had already secured Libyan supplied of oil. By backing the rebels they are in a Catch22. They risk losing deals if the rebels win and they risk losing deals if Gadaffi wins. If oil were the issue it would have made perfect sense to sit back and let Gaddafi murder his people.

I've read links like the one you've provided there. They are also misleading. What they fail to tell you is that the US has been weaning itself off Middle Eastern oil for over a decade. It's main provider is Canada from which alone the US imports more than twice what it gets from the whole of the Middle East.

US oil is imported from, in order:

CANADA
MEXICO
SAUDI ARABIA
NIGERIA
VENEZUELA
IRAQ
ANGOLA
BRAZIL
ALGERIA
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR
RUSSIA
KUWAIT
UNITED KINGDOM
ARGENTINA

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Libya doesn't even make the list.
In the coming years, China and India will be the biggest market for Middle Eastern oil not the West.

2ndThought:
I stand with the AU on this one -  we need to find a different solution which would not reduce Libya to pre-colonial conditions through repeated bombing on her infrastructure.

What infrastucture is being bombed? The airstrikes have only hit military targets.

Oil is not a factor. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the West obtains minimal amount of oil from Libya and they already have drilling deals balanced in their favour. The rebels have categorically stated that if they find any of those deals to have involved corruption (and let us face it, corruption will be involved), they will renegotiate them to blance them in favour of the Libyan people. This opens the door to China as it means that deals will be put out to tender again, probably costing any Western oil company more to obtain or losing them altogether.

The West stands to lose financially if the rebels take power. The claim that this is about oil is not well thought through as Gaddafi has already given the oil rights to the West at a cheaper price than they will have to pay if he is deposed.

Bobo if you know me I would sit you down face to face and tell you that you are wrong.

DeeJay20:
They were no shootings when their was the "so-called Protest" but before
you can "say your name" the so-called protesters had become armed with "Guns, Artillary and all sort of other weapons" and they turned from being [b]protesters carrying placards to so called rebels carrying Guns! [/b]and in a flash the western media was giving them legitimacy.

Are you blind!!!

Even Gaddafi's own son admitted that his troops fired on and killed unarmed protestors.
He blamed it on "poor training" of all things.
That's without even taking into account the claim by a senior Libyan soldier that Saaid Gaddafi himself ordered troops to open fire on civilians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12789740

As for calling the rebels "Islamic extremists", you sound as confused as Gaddafi himself when he says that this is a "Christian Crusade" and that the rebels are Al Qaeda. Christian Crusaders allying themselves with Al Qaeda? Doesn't the guy watch the news? 

ROSSIKE:
Look at Obama talking about Ghadaffi killing his own people. WHO SOLD GHADAFFI THE BLOODY WEAPONS, AND WHAT THE HELL DID THEY THINK HE WAS GOING TO DO WITH THEM? DECORATE HIS OFFICE?

Most of his weapons are Soviet/Russian.
All of his tanks, missiles, armour, ships and most of his planes are Russian (although he does have a couple of ancient French Mirages).

Even the guns that the people are firing are Russian Kalashnikovs.

Nothing in his military is US supplied. You're going to have to try harder if you want to blame the Americans.

Others have used Western News media and you mock them.

But it's OK for you to do likewise?

Like I said: Filthy hypocrite.

damas11111:
You claim to have access to the channels, yet you didnt listen to medical workers confirming the deaths as a result of the bombing!

Government "medical workers" on Libyan state TV. I'm only suprised that they don't have overalls with "Baby Milk Factory" written on the back in English.

There are rebel medical workers who are currently claiming that hundreds of civilians, including many women and children have been killed by Gaddafi's forces in the last couple of days.

I'll bet you'd say that they are liars.

SunofGod mocks a poster for using BBC and CNN as references and then uses SKY news to back up his point.
What a filthy hypocrite.

damas11111:
^^^^^^^^ @biachwest

What a ridiculous thing to say! There are more than 60 civilian casualities already. Do you have access to news channels like CNN, Al-Jazeera or BBC? It is all over there, go and check.

I do. And those News Channels are saying that is what the Libyan state TV is saying. But as the same TV channel was saying a couple of days ago that Gaddafi wasn't killing people and that a ceasefire was in place, when it wasn't, I wouldn't give it a second's thought.

Also, France was in Cote d'Ivoire a few years ago. Remember?
As for Yemen, the UK was there a while back.

Read history and learn.

Sun of god:
110 missiles in one night is not being very selective.

110 missiles is very selective.
Those 110 were Cruise Missiles. The most precise, selective weapon that there is. And let's make no mistake - if the West wanted to be non-selective, it could turn Libya into an even bigger desert by releasing a barrage of weapons that would utterly destroy the Gaddafi regime in minutes.

Arab League complaining is nothing new. They forget that they were the ones originally calling for the No-Fly zone. Now that it's in place, they will blame the West. It's the usual Arab tactic - start the trouble and blame someone else.

Cap28, you seem to be talking through two mouths.

Anyone can see that on one hand you're attacking Western governements by saying that they will be loading financial burden on their taxpayers and then on the other that they're going to be making huge amounts of revenue from controlling oil.

I ask you again: which is to to be?

You're being ridiculous comparing this to WMD in Iraq.

There are too many eye witness accounts and too many videos of Gaddafi's forces on the offensive to prove that you're totally and utterly wrong.

Try using Google before you make any more stupid assertions.

Guys. Whilst I'm not it's biggest fan I should point out that this is not the African Union saying these things. It is a panel.

It's made up of 5 member countries - South Africa, Uganda, Mali, Mauritania and Congo.

Mali, Mauritania and Congo receive massive amounts of money from Gaddafi. They were always going to defend him for financial reasons.
South Africa and Uganda would not have made this statement but were outvoted 3 to 2. The ANC even saw this coming a couple of days ago and warned Zuma that they should pull out of the panel.
Also, remind yourselves that South Africa was part of the UN security council that voted for the No-Fly zone.

I think this explains it.

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-03-18-observers-say-gaddafi-owns-au-panel

"The credibility of the fact-finding mission that the African Union will send to Libya has come under fire in South Africa because all the countries represented on the panel, apart from Uganda and South Africa itself, are financially reliant on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials say.

The AU appointed the panel, comprising the presidents of South Africa, Uganda, Mali, Mauritania and Congo, to visit Libya and meet relevant stakeholders in the conflict that has ravaged the oil-rich country since last month."


Notice that South Africa and Uganda are not reliant on Libyan money and they were the two countries who did not send their leaders.

A minute ago you were crowing about how the West would make money out of a conflict.
Now you're whining that it will cost them a fortune.

Which way do you want it?