91热爆

Only 'days' to run? Could be optimistic, Nick, that.

Regime Change is Cameron's agenda, Last night a cruise missile landed in the middle of Ghadafi's Tripoli compound. The USA is managing the military action from Virgina. A question for today is who authorised this strike which is clearly aimed at removing Ghadafi. Was it launched from a UK plane / submarine. Did Cameron authorise the strike , if not who did.

What a mess- its too late now- Europe should have discussed more with the Arab League the options available it is THEIR problem not the EU's
Regarding BOOTS ON THE GROUND well it will come to this because to finish things off you will need an International force to put the Country back on the path the people of Libya want?? assuming the present leader decides to retire to South America come off it this leader will go down fighting not throw in the towel.
Well America has got its chance at last to settle an old score,but very cleverly let the people of Europe start the action SO WE CAN'T BLAME THEM THIS TIME ROUND.

Before this intervention it was very certain how this would end - with the brutal suppression and massacre of those who have dared to stand up against a tyrannous regime. Those who are now 'warning' us that the outcome of this action is uncertain would do well to remember that that is a distinct improvement.

Bit of a Jack in the Box, it's all half a pound of Tupperware Rice with half a pound of Hello Treacle, that鈥檚 the way the coverage goes then POP goes the Measles. I never did like that spooky clown!

The strategy seems to be to try to make both sides as equal as possible so that they can fight it out. The hope is that lots of mercaneries will decide that this is not a good war to get involved with, with their own governments disowning them. Finally one of the Colonel's sons will be put forward as a leader of unity and we will end up with a stalemate. A low level civil war with a partially divided country will go on for years. 'Airpower' will act like a Premiership referee - no respect at all.

I confess to being a bit concerned at what might politely be termed 'mission creep' as the allies seem to have interpreted 'stopping the killing of civilians' as 'blowing the bejezzus out of Gadaffi's military'.

Still, I must admit I'm VERY impressed at the disinformation spread here last week. On a par with Major William Martin in WWII except no need for a dead tramp. I refer of course to the 'dinner party chatter' relayed to us that it would be simply impossible for Tornado planes to attack Libya as it would mean too much refuelling.

No doubt Gaddafi picked up on this disinformation and chortled to his aides "this is Cameron's Munich moment", to which his aides would have replied "But at Munich, the allies didn't order Hitler to stop, they caved in to Hitler and gave him what he wanted, here the allies ordered you to stop and when you didn't, they started blowing the bejezzus out of your forces. I don't see the parallels at all." To which Gadaffi would have put on one of his most manic stares and replied "that's becuse you don't understand irony", and his aides would have started slowly backing out the room, muttering to themselves that this time, the 'big man' really had lost it.

No pre-meditated end state was possible in this case and it is difficult to see how Europe and USA could stand idly by and let Gaddafi run amok on dissident citizens. However we have tolerated Mugabe for decades. Is he a nicer despot who treats the opposition as if they are a naughty house pet.
Is there no role for Egypt is securing the Libyan opposition in the East. What are the prospects for mass defections from the Gaddafi army and how could the west promote this. The UN resolution could be interpreted to allow the rebels to be supported by weapons to defend themselves but this would lengthen the conflict. If all else fails talk to Gaddafi - What is Chavez doing this Easter? Otherwise partition seems inevitable.

Yes indeed, I would like to hear an unambiguous statement from snooty - what is the war aim here?

Is the goal just a no fly zone? If so how long will it last? Indefinitely? Or in several years time will he suddenly set a date to pull out even if that leaves the Libyans in the lurch?

Is the goal regime change? If this is the case then it should be clearly stated so the people of disunited kingdom can form a judgement whether or not he has achieved his goal.

I'm not opposed to a short, sharp war to effectively finish this. But if snooty is committing us to indefinite conflict with out clear goals then I am not in favour.

I think this crisis could end up to so many years, as Gaddafi's supporters would not either give way to new change.

I believe that the world needs to stand up to people like Gadaffi, however we need to stick to the guidlines within the UN resolution and secure international support for our defense of the libyian people, also what happens if Gadaffi wins? do we enter a ground war or do we continue with a no fly zone? or do we encourage Gadaffi to have a free and open election with the opposition?

Whatever we do will not be easy however this was and i believe is a neccesary action, one cannot be diplomatic with tyrants like Gadaffi nd sometimes the only action they recognise is that of force.

It'll end in partitiion - an oil rich western Libya and an impoverished 'free' east.

It's a mess and we should not be involved, nor should the USA and other western powers. The only plane in the air since the UN resolution was a rebel one. What are the US doing to destroy their air power and defences? Nothing I bet!

It's so one-sided and yet the politicians pretend they are being fair. It seems to me that there is a lot of support for the current regime, and a lot of support to end it too. Therefore, giving the rebels the country would only give us another Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course another few million people (with huge amounts of money) reason to hate the west and the UK in particular.

Cameron, you have done this to us, it was nothing to do with us, yet you have dumped us in it big-time. There is no exit strategy, there is no strategy, it is and will remain a big mess for us and the whole of the western world and the middle east.

Cameron, you are unfit to lead, please stand aside and hang your head in shame. That's what happens when you promote people above their abilities, they get hopelessly out of their depth and end up causing a mess that someone else has to sort out. Where on earth do we get these people from, because believe me, I wish we'd left them there.

Cameron is not a big fish, he's not even a fish!

Hi there Andy (7), I'm sensing you don't consider Libya to be worth 'the blood of a single British grenadier' ... would that be fair?

"Tell me how it ends?", the American General asked vis-a-vis Iraq.

It is the sort of thing that is not unreasonable of military personnel to ask their politicians.

The political reply might be that one sort of end will occur when Gaddafi and his family are facing justice at The Hague and the job of the military is to ensure that that happens (bypassing the niceties of UN resolutions).

At that point, Libya will be facing a new beginning.

Exactly what sort of society will emerge in Libya is anybodys guess but that does not mean it cannot be nudged in the right direction.

That is, Libya may emerge as part of an Arab Spring or it might go in a different direction e.g. the Iranian theocratic dictatorship.

You make the investment but the returns are never guaranteed.

Here's another thought.

The tories have demanded that local councils provide on the interweb details of every expenditure over 拢500. Aparently this extreme level of bureaucracy is essential to allow democratic accountability.

OK.

I would like to call on snooty to do the same with this war. Every expenditure over 拢500 to be put on the internet.

Just for a starter - how much was spent on cruise missiles on the first night of the war?


(Federation of American Scientists gives a price of ~$1.4m per missile, that's just a bit over 拢500)

Must be a bit gut wrenching being a labour supporter right now.

What are you supposed to do?? Support atttacks that have United Nations approval or look like a dummy and oppose them? Doubtledd the labour party will choose the path of most self righteousness.

Let's hear it lads.. you never meant for there to be a war in Iraq.

It's grim up north London...

14 - *sigh* what, and to then have to then spend endless messages explaining that expressing caution at getting militarily involved in Libya didn't mean or imply that I was making any racist expression regarding any notion of the inherent superiority of a British life over a Libyan one?

No thanks, You see racism everywhere so it's not worth the hassle.

Therefore I respond to your post 14 by saying that my post at 7 makes and was not intended to make any political, racial, ethnic, economic (or any other basis of valuation) judgement regarding the worth of Libya or any Libyan as compared to the blood of any single British Grenadier or indeed any other member of the British or allied forces of whatever sex, race, creed, sexual orientation or religion or any other value based identifier either recognised now or which may be recognised at any time in the future.

16 - "I would like to call on snooty to do the same with this war. Every expenditure over 拢500 to be put on the internet."

You do that, mate. Best write him a letter though, I doubt he reads this HYS. I'm sure he'll give the idea careful consideration.

7. At 09:25am on 21 Mar 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
Still, I must admit I'm VERY impressed at the disinformation spread here last week. On a par with Major William Martin in WWII except no need for a dead tramp. I refer of course to the 'dinner party chatter' relayed to us that it would be simply impossible for Tornado planes to attack Libya as it would mean too much refuelling.
=====================

Hopefully you have a better understanding of tax dodging than military affairs.

Range of military aircraft with air-air refueling capability is near unlimited. Crew fatigue and sometimes engine oil capacity may eventually set a limit. Fly to Libya - launch standoff missile - fly back is very different to enforcing a no-fly zone. In that mission the more loiter/patrol time the aircraft has the more practical the mission.

Notably, what little is left of the disunited kingdom airforce seems to be moving to bases in Italy. Clearly the professionals understand the issue just fine.

The two major powers in the operation (USA, France) have moved their aircraft carriers to the area. Of course, the disunited kingdom doesn't have any of those.

This "War" is about oil , oil , oil.

If Libya had no oil , then the UK/USA would have no interest , like they have no interest in dozens of equally cruel dictatorships around the world.

The fact that the "War" has UN approval is irrelevant , what we are seeing is regime change by a third party, you can't get UN approval for that !!

It weeks to come , you will see its just been a very expensive waste of time , that could of built 10 new hospitals or kept 5000 teachers in a job.

What recession , keep blowing the money away Cameron , we don't need it...

16 "how much was spent on cruise missiles on the first night of the war?


(Federation of American Scientists gives a price of ~$1.4m per missile..."

I think the Federation of American Scientists saw you coming. type 'cruise missile costs' into Google and you get suggestions as low as $500,000.

I've got a Saab Convertible for sale .....it's....er....拢40,000...interested?

Speculation about how this exercise will end is fruitless. It all depends on a number of things - not least how Gaddafi acts in the days ahead. If a bloody civil war ensued I can't believe that the Arab League would stand idly by and it would be possible to take the matter back the UN. For the time being we should content ourselves that thousands of innocent Libyans are still alive as a result of a curtailment in Gaddafi's freedom to wage war on his own people. It is important that the UK remains part of a very broad coalition.

"Is the goal regime change?" - jon @ 9

Mmm, the thing which dare not speak its name (since not enormously lawful). More than a fair chance, I'd say, that regime change - i.e. oust Gaddafi - is the principal objective, whether overt or not.

The sanctioned mission at present is to 'protect civilians' but you only need to argue a couple of things - (1) that Gaddafi remaining in power creates the risk of mass atrocities against civilians, and (2) that 'civilians' include the rebel forces and their supporters - in order to emerge with a case for fighting an anti-Gaddafi war.

Not a great case (IMO) but a case nevertheless.

Some key questions for me are:

- Can we stay within a UN remit this time or are we again prepared to act outside it if we don't get what we want from the security council?

- Re above, how is a 'civilian' defined in the context of this Libya situation?

- Even if within a UN mandate, can we get significant non-western practical involvement (particularly from arab nations) in the action so it avoids, as far as possible, the smack of imperialism which a French, British, American military attack on a country like Libya will otherwise have?

- Is ruling out ground troops at this point mainly for short-term political consumption? If we mean it, how can we fulfil the mission - either of civilian protection or of regime change?

- And with regime change, how do we know what the rebels are all about? The various factions. Their aims and motives. From where derives our confidence that a much better Libya ensues from the probable chaos following the fall of the Gaddafi regime (if indeed it does fall)?

- Is a partitioned Libya, for example, an outcome we're comfortable with?

(Oh god, just typing all of that kind of brings it home to me that here we are in Britain - yet again - talking about chopping and changing another part of the world as if we have some right to do so. Wonder where we get this idea? Eton? Fettes?)

The main issue with this military intervention, which I think is clear, but it would be helpful if the Government could confirm, is that it is akin to the No Fly Zones instituted to protect Kurds and Shi'a in Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. Such a policy, which received multinational support, was extremely effective, at least in the north of the country. Saddam's attacks on the Kurds ceased and his scope for external mischief severely curtailed. There were no multilateral casualties. It is true that the no fly zone policy had no exit strategy, and that international support declined the longer it remained in place. But overall, it proved more effective (and considerably cheaper) in providing protection and maintaining regional security than the debacle of invading Iraq in 2003.

What I don't understand is whether the rebels are still allowed to attack Gadaffi. Does the resolution for a "non combat zone" apply solely to Gadaffi's troops? If not - if it applies to both sides - then we could end up with a very ugly situation in which the West is compelled to attack pro-democracy rebels as they try to take control of Tripoli.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

How will it end? In tears, of course.

The Prime Minister has 2 questions to answer:

1. Why did he not ask Parliament BEFORE going to the UN? We are a parliamentary democracy, he is not a president with the authority to commit the country to a war except in a dire emergency when there is no time for parliamentary debate.

2. Where are the measures to protect ALL Libyan civillians from those who would use violence to express their opinion as to the future governance of Libya, not just the ones living in rebel-occupied areas?

20 - "Hopefully you have a better understanding of tax dodging than military affairs."

'Tax dodging'. Such a pejorative expression for what is legal tax planning. I hope you don't call all people legally entitled to benefits "benefits scroungers".

Well, of COURSE I have a better understanding of tax planning than of military affairs. I'm happy to admit it. I'm quite happy to admit that my understanding of military matters is very limited and so anything I say on military strategy is of limited use and comes from a background of minimal understanding.

Now, if only others on here were as honest when they opine on tax matters as I am on military matters.

:-) Methinks the tax advisor doth protest too much (18). Hey - no - just kidding around with you, Andy, is all. I sense we're about as agreed on this - doubtful of the wisdom, the motives, the morality of our military involvement in Libya, but let's at least make very sure to keep within a clear UN mandate and to drum up plenty of non-western practical involvement - as agreed on this issue as we'll ever be on anything.

And Robin (17), a risible attempt to make anti-Labour party political capital out of the situation. What a surprise. Haven't been so surprised since 'carrot cake' Cecilia asked for a second slice of carrot cake at our last meeting.

9.jon112dk wrote:

'I'm not opposed to a short, sharp war to effectively finish this. But if snooty is committing us to indefinite conflict with out clear goals then I am not in favour.'


Unlike the indefinite conflict without clear goals which someone else committed us to, that is Afghanistan. Of which you ARE in favour.

Ho hum.

The boots are all made in China so that solves the dilemma.

My question is when will Houghton Street be targeted for an air-strike?

I can understand the German reluctance as their previous escapade in North Africa turned out an unpleasant experience.

Humour apart, Nick, this is not going to take a few days to resolve. It will take a few days just to find out what is actually going on.

In the last couple of weeks Gaddafi has proved himself to be a ruthless and violent man. Those who oppose his removal have to provide an argument for his continued presence.

21 "It weeks to come , you will see its just been a very expensive waste of time , that could of built 10 new hospitals or kept 5000 teachers in a job."



Sorry, mostly it's typo's or issues not worth bothering with but this is the one thing that really should be stamped out.

it is "COULD HAVE" not "COULD OF".

I know how this has arisen, it's because of the abbreviation "could've". For goodness sake's though, think about it.

"I could have won" or "I could of won"?

Well, if you had won, would you say "I have won" or "I of won"???????

Same goes for would've and should've.

16. At 10:15am on 21 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:

Just for a starter - how much was spent on cruise missiles on the first night of the war?


(Federation of American Scientists gives a price of ~$1.4m per missile, that's just a bit over 拢500)

=======================================================

As far as I am aware the UK has bought two tranches of Tomahawks from Raytheon totalling about 120 missiles. Since then they have launched in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and now Libya. This platform can accomodate both conventional and nuclear warheads.

Any purchase of Tomahawks needs to be ratified by the US: Spain and the Netherlands were recently turned down. If the UK is dispatching even a minority of Tomahawks each night compared to the US, how many are left in the arsenal? Will we still have enough to sustain the cherished nuclear deterrent?

Has Cameron realised that he will need to fund replacement missiles asap and plus get permission from the US? Will there have to be further cuts in defence spending to pay for new missiles?

22. At 10:42am on 21 Mar 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
16 "how much was spent on cruise missiles on the first night of the war?


(Federation of American Scientists gives a price of ~$1.4m per missile..."
I think the Federation of American Scientists saw you coming. type 'cruise missile costs' into Google and you get suggestions as low as $500,000.
=======================================

Once again, I hope you are more knowledgable on tax dodging than military matters.

Do you get your tax info off google?

Cost of a cruise missile depends on which one - there are several 'blocks' with costs genrally reducing over time.

If snooty were to publish central government expenditure at the same level of detail as he demands of local government, we could find out how much the tax payer has paid for these ones. It is unlikely to be less than 拢500.

1. At 08:41am on 21 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:

"Only 'days' to run? Could be optimistic, Nick, that."

Not sure Saga. Could be days - The multilateral coalition is made up from some unusual bedfellows. Keeping the Arab League onside is key but they have already shown uneasyness how the NFZ is panning out. Withou the Arab League onside it's all back to the U.N. who would be unlikley to back any other resolution. Game over.

David Cameron and President Obama have rhetorically committed to the idea that Qaddafi needs to go but if regime change is not part of the U.N's resolution, it's not clear what the aims of the coalition are.

David Cameron has put an awful lot at stake as 'low risk' conflicts very rarely turn out to be 'low risk'.

24. sagamix wrote:

'Mmm, the thing which dare not speak its name (since not enormously lawful). More than a fair chance, I'd say, that regime change - i.e. oust Gaddafi - is the principal objective, whether overt or not.'

That's a given, isn't it S?
Obama: "...he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now."
Clinton: "...he should go..."
Sarkozy & Cameron: "The Libyan regime has lost any legitimacy that it could have."
Be far too embarrassing if he stuck around for another year or more. Don't want to rely on another 'WMD' and dodgy dossier moment again.
Unlikely Cameron (or Ed) will be embracing the colonel ten years from now outside a tent in the desert. Mind you, never say never.

7. AndyC555 wrote:

I confess to being a bit concerned at what might politely be termed 'mission creep' as the allies seem to have interpreted 'stopping the killing of civilians' as 'blowing the bejezzus out of Gadaffi's military'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right there Andy.
The ConDem鈥檚 seem to have taken a leaf out of the NuLabour book on lies.
Since when has the bombing of Presidential palaces, military convoys etc been part of a no fly zone policy.

We have already annoyed the Arab League with these actions & the ramblings of Fox & Hague this morning sounded positively amateur, even by NuLabour standards.

Why do our Politicians feel the uncontrollable urge to lie to us all the time; why not just tell it as it is?
They want Gadaffi out by any means possible; this is about securing the continuity of oil deals that have all ready been made & if the lives of a few civilians are saved then that鈥檚 a bonus.

Still, nice to see Austerity鈥檚 been put on the back burner yet again; seems we have money for another war, EU budget & Foreign aid increases , Eire bail out et al, but can鈥檛 afford public services.
Are these guys really serious about sorting out the country鈥檚 finances?

What a truly British (& UN) fiasco.

Jon112dk: Surely this is a contender for fiasco of the year?

sagamix...

'a risible attempt to make party political capital...'

Get used to it. We're playing your game for you now. That's why -

It's grim up north London...

Someone should have a word with Russia one of these days and find out exactly what their role on the world stage is. They voted for intervention and yet snipe on the sidelines about how it is carried out without contributing anything.

The UK is the only country where economic growth is struggling, and yet we've committed more ships, submarines and planes than any other country (except for France). Yes, we should contrubite to the coalition, but we should be more like Denmark and send a few planes instead.

As for China, they only seem good for sending other countries to war.

Jon112dk

Whats with the 鈥渟nooty鈥� title?

Why is it people like you get massively indignant about the slightest hint of imagined racism, sexism, homophobia or xenophobia but think it鈥檚 fine to be massively prejudicial against someone because of who their parents were?

"35. At 11:16am on 21 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:
22. At 10:42am on 21 Mar 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
16 "how much was spent on cruise missiles on the first night of the war?

(Federation of American Scientists gives a price of ~$1.4m per missile..."
I think the Federation of American Scientists saw you coming. type 'cruise missile costs' into Google and you get suggestions as low as $500,000.
=======================================

Once again, I hope you are more knowledgable on tax dodging than military matters.

Do you get your tax info off google?

Cost of a cruise missile depends on which one"



No, my tax info comes from other sources.

But I did wonder whether there might be more than one sort of Cruise missile. You seem to have confirmed that and that they cost different amounts. Makes me wonder why you quoted the $1.4m as if it were "THE" cost of a cruise missile rather than the cost of one SORT of cruise missile. That's how confusions start. Like me saying "the rate of tax is 21%" rather than clarifying that that's the current small companies' tax rate.

So if you are putting yourself forward as an expert on military matters, you should try and be more precise when mentioning figures.

Lets be realistic, the military action has little to do with supporting "democracy" and everything to do with regime change. And what's at the heart of the desire for regime change - oil oil oil.

If this was actually motivated by a desire to end totalitarianism in the region why is there not a firm stance being taken against the brutality being displayed by other Arab states - in other countries unarmed civilians are being shot and brutalised but apparently it fine for these states to engage in such behaviour -

a case of "yeah they may be despots but at least they are our despots"

One another front it makes me think - when was the last time that there were so many things to distract the public at the same time (a royal wedding and a war)- while the NHS was being run into the ground - oh yeah when Maggie was at the helm.

Fill the masses with jingoistic sentiment and distract them with "pretty lights" while you get to play the big man Dave, all the while destroying the health service - very clever, or maybe not so clever after all.

Andy 33

hughesz raises an important issue here. This week is budget week. It will be interesting to see the reaction to George Osbourne's austerity measures as yet another cruise missle is launched.

Presumably, the Chancellor is also worried about the effects of a protracted war knowing that there's no money left.

Diplomacy is the art of lying in such a way that you can get away with facing two ways at once. This gives your allies a way of doing what they want to do but then pretending that they didn't intend the consequences. Unfortunately, this is the way that the world works.

However, our MPs have a duty to ensure that what the government does makes things better and not worse.

So - a couple of questions. Firstly there is already a civil war in Libya. Unless one side gives in, there will either be an armed stalemate or more fighting. If there is armed stalemate, will we have another faled state, or a de-facto two state solution?

If the civil war continues, there will be battles for cities and inevitable civilian casualties on one side if not both. Would the coalition defend civilians in Tripoli and elsewhere against opposition tanks? Or does the protection of civilians only apply to opposition held areas?

It would be very foolish to assume that Gaddafi has no residual support and that this will all end nicely. The government needs to plan for every foreseeable disaster, rather than indulging in "military Mickawberism" - hoping that "something will turn up" to make solve their problems.

Also, what are we going to do about refugees and asylum seekers? There will be Libyans, African ex-mercenaries, and people who, just as before, are prepared to risk everything in the hope of a better life?

In this matter (Libya), 'we' must have absolute moral clarity.

That is, we must ensure that bad things (ultimately) happen to bad people or we are lost.

We bear witness to the forces of light and dark being played out every day.

The essence of the moral clarify in this case is that we are encouraging the removal of a bad family, who have been treating a whole country as their personal fiefdom.

It is not neo-colonialism at all, that is a totally spurious argument.

There is a very pragmatic element to this, in that a rogue State on the edge of Europe becomes a European problem.

This (English European) blogger is encouraged that some EU countries have stepped up to the plate and co-operated and co-ordinated their response to the Gaddafi families' crimes against humanity.

If the Arab Spring succeeds, many countries will be bought into modernity and the sum of human happiness may increase.

More light, less dark.

16. jon112dk wrote:

'I would like to call on snooty to do the same with this war. Every expenditure over 拢500 to be put on the internet.

Just for a starter - how much was spent on cruise missiles on the first night of the war?'


Jon, do you think we should have the UK's running costs in Afghanistan published daily, along with the fatalities, both civilian and combatants?

34. At 11:15am on 21 Mar 2011, excellentcatblogger

Yes, I believe you are on the right track with that.

I don't beieve they are the BGM-109 block IV, which have come down in price compared with earlier ones.

Of course we could be kind to Andy, who seems to be floundering today, and look at the cost of replacement at today's price for any we use.

Still >拢500


(Not sure the conventional ones can be easily switched to nuclear - they were usually refered to as TLAM-N & TLAM-C during that era. I think it unlikely the disunited kingdom could develop a suitable warhead without it becoming public knowledge)

29. At 11:01am on 21 Mar 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
Now, if only others on here were as honest when they opine on tax matters as I am on military matters.
=================

Last time we closely examined one of your pontifications on tax it turned out to be a lemon.

See lower cartoon of

www.nzherald.co.nz/news-cartoons/news/article.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=10713452

Looking at a globe and accepting the Med Basin as a unifying concept will hopefully overpower Europe-Africa-MidEast illusions of separation. Hopefully in a couple of decades time all sides of the Mediterranean will be calm, beautiful, freely trading and prepared to give space to peaceful debate.

It won't end well, that's all I know

Am not much of a military buff so I won't comment on the possible scenarios there as I have little knowledge on the subject

I still think we should have left this one to the Arabs, they are next door and have more than enough aircraft and resources to deal with this - they wanted the NFZ so they should implement it, then no-one can say the West is interfering in Arab affairs.

The problem is they don't want to get involved as they can see the good old Colonel retaining power - and then his wrath will be turned on them. No, much better to have everyone else sort it for them

28. Megan wrote:

"The Prime Minister has 2 questions to answer:
1. Why did he not ask Parliament BEFORE going to the UN? We are a parliamentary democracy, he is not a president with the authority to commit the country to a war except in a dire emergency when there is no time for parliamentary debate.
2. Where are the measures to protect ALL Libyan civillians from those who would use violence to express their opinion as to the future governance of Libya, not just the ones living in rebel-occupied areas?"

Fair points... bit late for a debate now.

41. At 11:47am on 21 Mar 2011, Mark_from_Manchester wrote:
Jon112dk

"Whats with the 鈥渟nooty鈥� title?

Why is it people like you get massively indignant about the slightest hint of imagined racism, sexism, homophobia or xenophobia but think it鈥檚 fine to be massively prejudicial against someone because of who their parents were?"

So David Cameron became PM because who his parents were. Thankfully, wouldn't happen in this day and age.

andy @ 33

You have done the inevitable. In the process of constructing a post chastising somebody on a point of grammar, you've made a basic grammatical error. And I'm doing the inevitable in now pointing it out - yawn yawn yawn. Except I'm going to mix thing's up a bit by NOT pointing it out. Going to just leave it at that. Oh what a sickener for people who've paid good money to log on here today.

So why are we continuing to target Tripoli?

The government assets in and around Misratah are far more important strategically and politically, both in the short term, and the long term.

It may be too late to eradicate Gaddafi's forces from Zawiyah, but that too would be a far better use of our capability.

Tripoli is a media hotspot, with far too many civilians (and some at least, support the government). So why bother with it now?

We appear to have saved Benghazi, now we must shift that focus and ensure that other important towns do not fall.

With Misratah firmly in rebel hands, there can be no phoney ceasefire, nor can Gaddafi effectively partition Libya in his favour.

#40 Me "The UK is the only country where economic growth is struggling"

Should have said "The UK is the only country involved in this operation where economic growth is struggling"

Mr N @ 36

Yes, I suppose our military involvement could be all over in days. For this to be the case, though, implies an outcome at either extreme of the 'good/bad' spectrum. Seems unlikely to me, but what do I know? What do I really know about Libya? Slightly more than David Cameron, yes, but still.

"49. At 12:07pm on 21 Mar 2011, jon112dk wrote:
29. At 11:01am on 21 Mar 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
Now, if only others on here were as honest when they opine on tax matters as I am on military matters.
=================

Last time we closely examined one of your pontifications on tax it turned out to be a lemon."

Highly unlikely. Bit like me saying last time Germany played England in the World Cup, they lost. You might LIKE it to be true but it just didn't happen that way.

I note you give no details. Bit like me saying of you, "you know that time you said that thing about that thing when we were talking about that other thing on that blog about the thing, well turned out you were completely wrong and we all agreed that, even you". See how easy it is? And how pointless?

What is with this 'snooty' stuff ...., can you raise your level of arguement jon112dk rather than play the 'class war' card each and every time you post?

Take a look at Sagamix's postings ..., clearly designed to get up the nose of those 'on the right' of the arguement, but he does it in a sophisticated manner.

Raise your game.

"55. At 12:32pm on 21st Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 33

You have done the inevitable. In the process of constructing a post chastising somebody on a point of grammar,"


As I made clear, it isn't grammar and I wouldn't bother to post if it was or if it was a typo, it's a MISS-USE of English. 'Of' instead of 'have' isn't grammar or spelling, it's using the wrong word.

54. At 12:30pm on 21st Mar 2011, Mr N wrote:
41. At 11:47am on 21 Mar 2011, Mark_from_Manchester wrote:
Jon112dk

"Whats with the 鈥渟nooty鈥� title?

Why is it people like you get massively indignant about the slightest hint of imagined racism, sexism, homophobia or xenophobia but think it鈥檚 fine to be massively prejudicial against someone because of who their parents were?"
========================

Eh?

When did I get indignant about any of those?

You must have me confused with one of the lefties like BlameGame.

"50. At 12:08pm on 21st Mar 2011, Mike3 wrote:

See lower cartoon of

www.nzherald.co.nz/news-cartoons/news/article.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=10713452"

That is the least funny cartoon I have seen in a long while - was that why you drew it to our attention?

55 sagamix wrote:

"And I'm doing the inevitable in now pointing it out - yawn yawn yawn. Except I'm going to mix thing's up a bit by NOT pointing it out. Going to just leave it at that."
Oh what a sickener for people who've paid good money to log on here today.
=============================================

Good afternoon saga. Or alternatively, mixing things up (no apostrophe required - grammar point after all!) and not pointing things out which support your views are very much your style of posting. Not that I'm sickened by this, as having paid my good money to log on, I know exactly what to expect and it has to be said saga, you never fail to deliver exactly what we expect from you.

And the winner of this blogs BIOT award is:

ak35 with his posting (43) at 11:55am on 21 Mar 2011.

Well done ak35, even though she hasn't been PM for over 20 years you can still find an angle to mention her.

Congratulations!

The BG @ 37

Yes, I think so. Whatever our 'mission' - for the military action - it has some supportability (for me) only if it stays within a clear* UN mandate and has a significant degree of practical non-western (including arab nations) involvement.

* BTW, how many abstentions can you have and still have a resolution passed, do you know?

Any case - I caught the Sun headline today and at least they're reporting the conflict in the right spirit: 'Top Guns One, Mad Dog Nil' ... they said.

60 Jesoal_Kotarohe

"Take a look at Sagamix's postings ..., clearly designed to get up the nose of those 'on the right' of the arguement, ......"
==============================

Oh dear, saga, someone else has sussed you out ! Another new member for the SAS - Sagamix Appreciation Soceity.

Ghadafi is a tyrant and if his regime gets overthrown as a result of a "loose" interpretation of the UN resolution I'm not going to lose any sleep just as I don't because Saddam Hussein has gone.

We cannot deal with every tyrant in the world not least because there isn't the international willpower. It is a fact that some of that willpower comes as a result of oil and quite frankly it is in all our interests to see oil supplies as stable as possible.

Unfortunately, politicians aren't free to speak in such terms but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. I for one am proud of the role this country has taken in world in many cases. I include Iraq as far as removing Saddam Hussein but our role in the reconstruction was lamentable something we should learn from should Ghadafi fall. Whoever replaces him will need our help.

I am not naive enough to believe that everything is black and white or that running a country is easy (unlike many contributors to this blog). In politics as in all walks of life it is sometimes necessary "to hold your nose" or choose the least worse option but the stakes may be higher.

On points of substance we are experiencing Iraq Groundhog Day. Instead of it taking 12 years, 10 UN resolutions, and the gassing of innocent civilians, this is being compressed into a far shorter timeframe (although taking the history of the last 25 years on Libya, one could yet again, as with Saddam, say its been a long time coming). Gaddafi has however the potential to stretch this out, like Saddam in the 90s and beyond, for a long long time.

The UN supported intervention has so far helped to stop Benghazi being taken, but what next? As the rebels see Gaddafi's forces retreat will they chase after them, buoyed by the overwhelming force that is now behind them? If not, then where does that leave Libya - 2 nations?

At what point does the UN blow the final whistle? No-one has set out yet what will constitute job done.

All the quotes coming from Western leaders are fairly unambiguously saying regime change and it surely therefore becomes more and more difficult to stop if that means that Gaddafi stays in power. With each new building that we see destroyed, instead of a tank, when the first pictures of burnt and broken young children, instead of 'soldiers', then we can watch as the broad coalition becoming thinner and thinner.

The starting of these wars is all too easy, especially when its pictures of fast jets and fancy ships, not to forget the gotcha headlines. But as everyone's arch villain Tony Blair found out, its the lack of a quick and successful endgame that will haunt forever more (I suspect the dodgy dossier would be small beer these days if Iraq had finished in 6 months, Saddam gone, with limited UK deaths and without the descent into chaos the Iraqi people had to suffer).

Boots on the ground or no boots on the ground, a more united Commons or not, a less ambiguous UN resolution or not, there's no easy endgame here. Although I hope I'm proved completely wrong.

As an aside, we saw over the weekend the potential contradictions in new found freedoms. There was obvious joy for a large majority of Egyptians casting votes to take them closer to democratic rule, but included in those voting against were some of the key groups involved in the demonstrations to remove Mubarak, worried that elections will come too fast for them to be properly organised and ready. Its never simple.

62. jon112dk wrote:
'When did I get indignant about any of those?'

Thanks for appellation but I'm not worthy.
And why would being anti any of those have anything to do with the 'left'.

Whilst we're on the subject of indignation, any thoughts on #47?

@63. At 12:57pm on 21st Mar 2011, ianathome wrote:

"50. At 12:08pm on 21st Mar 2011, Mike3 wrote:

See lower cartoon of

www.nzherald.co.nz/news-cartoons/news/article.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=10713452"

That is the least funny cartoon I have seen in a long while - was that why you drew it to our attention?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Nick Robinson's Newslog title is 'How will Libya end?" I think the list in the cartoon reminds everyone on the difficulties of predicitng ends. It is much moe than unfunny.

66. At 13:00pm on 21st Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:

'* BTW, how many abstentions can you have and still have a resolution passed, do you know?'

Basically a majority of Yes votes is needed, if the abstentions outnumber them the motion/resolution is defeated. This one was 10 - 0 with 5 abstentions.

Never in favour of direct intervention to save "civilians", inevitably direct action will result in collatoral damage to those the subject matter of the intervention. Countries should be allowed to find their own balance with their own means. Bosnia etc. was too close to home to ignore, yet for a long time Europe spectated: why on earth are we getting involved in policing arabs? We do not understand their culture and will not be thanked for what we are doing. The Arabs can sort out the matter themselves, and the Arab League should have taken whatever policing measures are required, if any. Our Leaders and Government's holier than thou attitude is prejudiced by the lack of will to do anything in other areas of concern such as Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi and many other problem regimes within the African continent. And against all that we are imposing upon our own people the severest peacetime cuts to benefits and the NHS ever known but yet can find unlimited funds to waste on such pig ignorant follies as this, Mr Cameron it is not in my name. A. M Bush Inverurie.

re #7
I am out of date on current military-fly stuff but I can guess at three good reasons why the RAF would prefer not to fly missions against Libyan targets from East Anglia.
1. Long flight, more chance of something going wrong,
2. Long flight, more equipment service required, slower turnaround, and,
3. Long flight, not enough air crew available to cover rest periods of returned crews.

Why are they not using Cyprus? Dunno.

We have commitments elsewhere. I feel that other countries should be handling the military bit for Libya

We cannot, and should not, try to settle the world's problems, all at once.

But the news from Yemen is that several military leaders have moved to protect the anti-government protesters.

By supporting change in Libya we have set a precedent that others appear to be following.

Well I hope you don't think I'm trying to get up your nose, Strictly (67). Not to hurt your feelings or anything, but it isn't a notion which appeals.

#74

Courtesy would be my guess.

LIMASSOL, Cyprus (Reuters) - Cyprus said on Sunday it opposed any use of British bases on the island to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya but conceded it had no power to stop their involvement.

#77 Further ...

A command centre to coordinate the movement of British assets over Libya has been set up at an RAF base at Akrotiri, on the southern coast of the island.

The British bases' headquarters said Akrotiri was not being used to launch offensive strikes on Libya, nor was it hosting air assets from any other nation for the operation.

There were no plans to deploy Typoon or Tornado aircraft at the base, it said in a statement. There were surveillance aircraft at the facility, it said.

In London, Defence Secretary Liam Fox told 91热爆 television Britain would deploy Typhoons and Tornadoes to a base in southern Italy either later on Sunday or on Monday.

Right, Blame (72), thanks. Seems reasonable, I suppose.

Yes okay, Andy (61), but now you're lapsing into capital letters. Not sure what we think about that. Let me mull it over and get back to you with a ruling.

What's happened to the French, taking one of those extra long lunches?

First day they were up and at em near Benghazi, but not a peep since. This as reports come in of Daffi shelling towns all over Libya.

Robin @ 17 wrote:

Must be a bit gut wrenching being a labour supporter right now.

>>

Depends how your mind works, really. We can see how yours does.