Without wanting to get into an argument of who agrees and who doesn't....

I believe it is the right thing to do because it was not rushed into and the UN approved it with huge international support. The French were the first to go on the offensive which shows that this is not about the US and the UK acting alone.

Anyway, the Arab League who supported this are moaning already about how this attack was executed but we can't take Gaddafi's word as 100% true that we have blown up some innocent people. (Although I suppose innocent people will get injured in the cross fire - not as many as would be killed if we do nothing).

Fortunately according to Sky News, some Qatari planes have arrived in the area so hopefully that will bring the Arab League into active involvement.

What does my head in is the mandatory Russian moaning. I have nothing against the Russian people but do they ever shut the up about anything the west does? They would say black was white if they thought it would go against anything the west does.

Lets just hope the combined forces can successfully kick that Gaddafi's ass. Stupid mother  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

The UN Security Council's vote to approve action against Libya required a majority of the council's 15 members to agree to the proposal - the votes in favour were 10 - abstentions 5 - against nil.

Those abstaining were:
Russia - because they have their own internal problems with folks who desire a truly free and open electorial system and not one of Putin's hegemony and internal security bullying of "voices of dissent".
China - well no surprise there as they have, just like Russia, an increasing "electorate" that desires an equal voice in the decision and policy making of a modern China.
Brazil - this abstention was done purely to influence the safe release of a Brazilian journalist who had been reporting on events in Zarwiya from the non-governmental "rebel" perspective and was captured and beaten-up by Gaddafi's forces.
India - this was a baffling vote - the rational for which is yet to become transparently clear.
Germany - Angela Merkel has local and regional elections approaching throughout April - her coalition in Parliament that keeps her party in power and prevents a general election is very fragile (she's been loosing seats in Q4'10 elections) and so the abstention was a sop to keep her political partners happy. They want her (Germany) out of Afganistan and certainly did not want to be in N. Africa. Saturday's Paris public apparent U-Turn was just another of her political manoeuvres to save her dignity face-to-face with NATO allies, but it will not result in any real contribution of German armed forces in Libya.

Having said that, Gaddafi will not be a push over and no one should expect a swift resolution i.e. Gaddafi's downfall. The alliance can only prepare the ground (rebalance the odds) for the rebellion. It is they that must get their military act together and fight as a cohesive professional military force and not as has been a rag tag militia albeit an enthusiastic one.

The victory clock is now ticking - if they are late on parade they will loose, the alliance will loose its UN mandate and support, and the Arab world will turn against it.

-oo0oo-
So for me it's no more Brazilian mangos for breakfast - no more Tandoori curries - no more Lufthansa flights - no more reading Pravda - and China has been off the must buy agenda since the publication of that Little Red book.

Good point well made Athelstan. Just heard in the last hour on Sky News that they have called a ceasefire. All talk and no action from Gaddafi again? LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Have to say no. It's transparent - Payback for Locherbie.

dunroof wrote:

Have to say no. It's transparent - Payback for Locherbie.

 LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

We are all entitled to an opinion if you are wrong. It's as clear as the smile on Camerons face. Forget that, he always looks smug.

Come on, who really cares about the Lybians? It's all about getting rid of Gadaffi. I mean the UK has done deals with some of the most cut throat regimes in the world when it suits them, even the Taliban when the Russians were in Afghanistan. We are no better than those we are meant to be protecting people against, we just have better spin Doctors.

Getting rid of Gaddafi is a good thing, nothing to hide about wanting. The people of Libya would ideally want him gone. Revenge for Lockerbie is rubbish. USA and UK it could be argued would bear a grudge but the French have lead the way along with other countries such as Canada. The UN passed this based on the protection of the people. The UN did not sit there in New York plotting how best to get revenge.

Anyway, if the UK wanted revenge so badly, why would we let out that guy who was involved and hand him over rather than stand our ground? LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

The 'Locherbie bombers' release was purely political and was influenced by Libyan threats to cancel lucrative BP oil exploration contracts.

No-one is shouting of the Human Rights abuse happening in the Yemen and Bahrain, why, because they are an important ally to the west and extremely useful yet their government troops are killing their own people. Now the Arab League of Nations are having second thoughts on the Libyan raid.

No western government gives a damn about the people, its all about getting countries on-side and protecting the oil supplies, so next time you have a moan about the rise in diesel fuel for your car, think of how many are being killed to keep it flowing.

Gadaffi needs to go, he must accept that the people want change, he must follow Egypt's way, if not then assassinate him and his cronies and get the hell out of there.

Getting rid of Gaddafi might well be a good thing, but it's none of our business and not worth the lives of servicemen.

Who knows what the people of Lybia want. All we have is embedded TV reports that are biased in the extreme.

Yes, the French led the way, they were desperate to do it after a massive cock up when their Forign Ministery sold arms to another African state that was then used to kill those wanting political reform. It was a case of, 'Sorry minister, we couldn't work out who was on what side.'

Besides the UK, France is one of the biggest arms suppliers in the world, even Canada is there believe it or not, who'd think they supply arms round the world, but they do.

France has supplied Ethiopia, Tunisia, Egypt, China and Russia with arms. It even sold Mirage 5 jets to Lybia!

The UN is a corrupt organisation. Each country has it's own hidden agenda. The US has been a major mover to the no aggression resolution. It's trying to distance itself because it doesn't want to be seen as a mover and shaper of policy.

As for letting Al Megrahi out of the UK, I think we all know the trouble this caused, not least with the Westminster government, if you swallow that. There was nothing they could do about it, supposidly. It was another burr, another irritant, essentially a lot of western politicians want Gaddafi out and when the uprising didn't do it, they have decided to give it a helping hand. Fine, but dont run away with the idea that the UK or any of the other governments have high morals or ideals, they dont.

Anyway Doctor, wasn't it you that said at the start of this thread, 'without getting into an arguement?' Maybe a caveat to that would have been, 'So long as everyone agrees with me.'

dunroof wrote:

Anyway Doctor, wasn't it you that said at the start of this thread, 'without getting into an arguement?' Maybe a caveat to that would have been, 'So long as everyone agrees with me.'