Sure, but what's your opinion?

 

I think he should be prevented from murdering his fellow Libyans.

Les

 

But only with a resolution, right?

 

I thought I had said that already. If a resolution is not forthcoming then UNO has failed.

Les

 

And we take no action? I'm just trying to clarify your position, Les.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

 

I'm watching Aljazeera live and the scenes of celebration in Benghazi are fantastic! Their lives spared and the revolution back on....quite emotional.

 

So what do we do when taking out his aircraft and perhaps a few tanks and fuel depots doesn't work as Gaddafi lets loose his remaining tanks and heavy artillery and blows the s,hit out the rebels?

And what happens when a mirror rebellion gathers momentum in Bahrain and then Saudi? Do we go in there as well?

I hate to say it but, on balance, I think the West should keep out of it and just hope that someone puts a bullet in Gaddafi's head.

(And why didn't the UN have the ***** to pass a similar resolution against Zimbabwe where tens of thousands have suffered under Mugabe?)

dl

 

Lots of questions with complex answers and I'm off to bed. I'll respond fully tomorrow. On Mugabe, the issue is with the African Union and to a lesser extent Chinese interests; the Libyan Rebels' support will be spearheaded by regional powers and whilst Gaddaffi will (probably) go out fighting, the sacrifices made by brave opposition fighters will be for the greater good.

 

If they win bien sur.

 

They'll win. As David said, the real dilemma is the Bahrain/Saudi situation: if we don't back the rebels we're practising double standards (the hypocrisy of realpolitik), if we do we compromise our interests and support an Iranian (Shia) backed rebellion. Entre le marteau et l'enclume. Anyway, up in five hours - must sleep.

 

Firstly at least Cameron got a UN resolution on this. Are you watching Tony Blair?

Having said that once again we see a situation panning out with nothing more than an immediate plan .... no thought given to what happens if.....or next? The last thing we (the UK specifically) need is another country where we are spending millons of pounds a day trying to win an unwinnable war. We have two of those already thanks to Bush and Blair and their crass stupidity.

Like you David I stilll feel we should have stayed out of it and when it is a complete mess in a few months time you can all come back and read this.

As for we'll win.... well depends how you define win. Did we win in Iraq? On paper yes, in reality not a bit of it.

Of course Cameron will be happy as he now has his excuse for why the economy will be even more f**ked in a few months time. In reality it is because he has cut too hard too fast, but he can now blame it on Libya. Perfecto

 

Just an observation. It's strange how politicians change. If you recall France was strongly opposed to the Iraq invasion asking for time for Hans Blix to complete his work and report on WMDs. And now it is France who are all gung ho and their jets might be the first to press the buttons over Libya.

Perhaps they could bomb a few Israeli settlements in Palestine while they are about it as that would even things up a bit (and comply with long ignored UN resolutions about Israel's illegal building programme).

dl

 

How rediculous , so if the Sultan of good knows where hadnt suggested openly that daffy was just a naughty boy who needed to be put in his place thousands more people wouldnt be needlessly killed

cos thats wots going to happen

 

Yes, good thinking

Funny how UN resolutions only apply to some countries..... those with regimes not in line with Western thinking and oil in fact

 

“It’s over. The issue has been decided,” Gaddafi said. “We are coming tonight, we will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”

As ever, it's about choosing sides.

 

http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

 

Kadafy means little frog in Shona apparently , i think there is some kind of resemblence

 

In what way exactly is the building illegal?
Is it that the previous occupiers (Jordan) have some kind of objection, or perhaps the British still hold moral authority?

 

Off topic. Let's try to keep this about Libya - the one trick ponies will only trot out the same old oneliners on a subject that's been done to death.

Where do you stand on Libya?

 

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...8&postcount=39

At least you got the thread title right.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_446

 

He has bottled it...............Ceasefire is now on!

 

ETA:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/j...d&type=article

So, unilateral action would have been 'illegal', which is rolled out as a reason not to have removed Saddam. Anyway, back on topic.

 

Or so he says!

 

Thank goodness the Chinese and Russia didn't wield their veto. We would be looking at a bloodbath in Benghazi right now as intervention would have been 'illegal'.

 

But he seems to have forgotten to let his troops know........

dl

 

Thank goodness Libya declared a ceasefire. We would be looking at a Western led bloodbath (another one) in Tripoli right now despite the fact that intervention would have been 'legal'. That is of course if the ceasefire is genuine which I doubt!

 

Which settlement(s) in particular?

 

Given the way you kept vilifying the Iraq war as Illegal I thought that 'legality' was all that mattered to you??