We're in a spot, aren't we? I wonder what the anti-West posters like f1_fan would like to see. Intervention or not. Let's ignore our interests, briefly, and ask whether we have a moral and humanitarian obligation to support the rebels if it is requested by the majority. Remember what happened to the Shia in Iraq after Gulf War 1?

 

it is certainly "clear as mud" the whole region looks a mess tbh

in Iraq -- they have been protesting against the same governmental corruption, chronyism, and general malaise in any form of institutional democracy/fairness that the Egyptians, Libyians, and Tunisians have been protesting against.

Iraq security forces shot dead 12 protestors, one wonders what would happen if a popular revolt took hold there, who would we side with

 

And fat. Perhaps, as they say, marriage agrees with her.
Old Billy-boy must be a dab hand in the kitchen as well as the bedroom.

 

He does have a lot of military force on his side and I think he could win back control of the country, especially with the treatment of captured rebels.

Any kind of force from other countries should certainly be sanctioned by the UN based on the treatment of civilians during the battle.

If he does win I expect that all his oil will go in a different direction to where it did before.

Les

 

Some of the gore websites claim to have pics of Lybian rebels killed in gun fights.

Judging by the images it looks like the reports of rebels being shot at with anti-aircraft/tank weapons appears to be supported (bodies torn in half etc).

Not pleasent.

 

Hypothetical question, Les: If the rebels were being slaughtered and the UN were unable to provide a resolution for intervention (no-fly zone, for example) owing to a veto by one or more permanent members, should the UK and the US and France et. al. remain inactive? Imagine that the veto comes from the members alluded to in your final paragraph.

 

Things are getting interesting now , gaddafi says if any interference from the west he'll attack them too.

We'll know more tomorrow.

 

Yes, as usual we are slow to react. The UN could probably have ended Gaddafi's rule now if they had taken the initiative and acted promptly when the momentum was against him. Imposing strict no fly zones and possibly even bombing his known location. Now things are messy. The proportion of the population supporting Gaddafi would probably have been much lower had he been given less time to organise and deliver speeches. Now it's chaos, with two sides determined to beat each other... makes you wonder what will happen if he is removed now and they are left to fight over the scraps of the country.

 

Perhaps a no-fly zone is the thin end of the wedge? So we wipe out his aircraft so he just rolls out his tanks and blows the place to bits. So what does the West do then?

dl

 

I heard a military analyst say that an enforced no fly zone is just a euphemism for war anyway

 

personaly i dont think the extra cost is a mjor issue.

Training is no substitue for combat, so will help keep our pilots in tip top form in case there ever needed.

 

We are signatories to UNO and therefore should abide by the decisions of that organisation, advisory or not.

It is a moot point whether a no fly zone should be established over Libya if the aircraft are being used to kill Libyan people. I would hope that UNO would come out with a positive recommendation for such a situation.

A unilateral attack on Libya whch is not approved by the UN would be illegal as was the attack on Iraq and would probably lead to similar problems, both in the country concerned and worldwide.

What would you do under the present circumstances?

Les

 

We can't do this; it will meaning bombing anti-aircraft assets and that invariably means pictures of Libyan kids killed by western bombs at some point.

We gotta let the Libyans work this out even if it means Libya sliding into being a failed state

 

The only way we, as in the West, should get involved militarily is with a firm UN resolution (something the Obama administration actually seem to understand unlike his predessor) and with the backing of the Arab states not to mention the Libyan people.

We also need to have a proper plan as to what happens next i.e. once Gadaffi has gone. Do we really need another Afghanistatn/Iraq?

I would also like to know how having been told we, as in the UK, have to cut back on military spending can afford to get involved?

 

It depends. IMO the main issue is whether people want to contribute. There should be some kind of system where people can 'opt in' and pay an additional set tax (possibly based on their earnings, but with the ability to pay more if they would like) to help in circumstances like these. The money gathered should then be spent in the best way possible.

Nothing wrong with policing the world IMO, as long as it's done by people who want to do so. Still, this isn't really practical enough to be relevant to the situation in Libya right now. But Libya is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stuff like this.

 

I would go with the government's position - I get that we need a UN resolution (we were desperate to secure this prior to 2003) and I absolutely understand the desire for Arab backing (and think we'll get it). What troubles me is this: Gaddafi can't stay in power, but will fight to the death and it would seem that the rebels lack the capability to remove him. This appears to lead to one possible outcome: Military intervention. What I can't square is what we do should the Russians (and possibly China) use their veto to block a mandate. What then? Do we stand by and watch as he carries out bloody reprisals? Look on as other dictators around the globe learn that the way to address a popular uprising is to turn guns and bombs on the people?

 

Do you really want me to write you an essay on the complexities of that situation or can I hope that you'll do the reading for yourself, Dave?

 

EFA

 

Bless you.

Eta: "wrote myself it"

 

I quite understand the points you are making. I thought that a UNO recommendation would be carruied by a 2/3 majority rather than be blocked by a single veto.

Ghaddafi wont give up power until he is forced to and the likely massacres to come are a terrible thought. I sincerely hope that the UN find an effective way to stop the killing.

Les

 

Hello, Les.

The five permanent members must be unanimous for a resolution to be passed.

 

I see the Arab League are now supporting a no-fly zone and asked the West to get on with it. But why pass the buck to the UN and the West, haven't they got any planes to get on with it themselves without passing the poisoned chalice to us?

I thought we had been flogging millions of quids worth of military kit to the Saudis over the years, isn't that how Mark Thatcher got rich?

Thoughts?

PS. Gadaffi must think Christmas has come early with the Japanese diverting media attention for a week or so.

dl

 

Hasnt there been rumblings of discontent in Saudi itself

 

Yes, minor stuff at present. But if it got serious and they brought down the House of Saudi that would be an awful lot of s,hit hitting a very big fan.

The mother of all headaches for the West if that happened and don't even think about the effect on the oil price

dl

 

Just shows you, doesn't it... we've had such relative stability over the last couple of decades here. Easy to forget how it all hangs by a thread in some ways.

 

Yes all understood.

The worse thing is the length of time they take before coming to a resolution while people are dying over there.

Les

 

And if Russia (and possibly China) veto, intervention's off the menu, right?

 

That will be down to the rest of the five concerned.

Les