The United Nations and Libya (Quadaffi)

Media here is saying airstrikes could begin in a matter of hours.
 
So are we specifically protecting civilians from being attacked, or are we taking sides in a civil war and helping the rebels?
 
Darat said:
Taking sides.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If it was literally only a no-fly zone I suppose it would only be "taking sides" by default because the no-fly zone only affects the side that has aircraft, rather than a deliberate attack on Gadaffi. But the resolution actually goes a lot further than that, allowing attacks on ground units and ships "if civilians are under threat of attack" which seems to give an awful lot of leeway to thrash the living daylights out of any Libyan aircraft, ground unit or ship that happens to look like it might be looking in the wrong direction.

They're doing everything short of ground invasion, but I guess the plan is to destroy Gadaffi's forces on the ground and let the rebels handle the ground part.

gumboot said:
Media here is saying airstrikes could begin in a matter of hours.
Click to expand...

Presumably those strikes won't be including UK forces, since they're not voting on whether to have a go until next week. Mind you that probably still leaves plenty of leeway.
 
Last edited:
Keeper said:
Which is a fair enough stance I guess if implemented consistently. In which case I wish they'd voted against. Abstaining reeks of wanting rid of Gaddafi without being seen to take sides or get their hands dirty.

I think this is an awful plan. Even if the principles are correct there is a complete lack of clarity around the objective of what we are trying to achieve.

I'm not sure what has changed the US stance on this.
Click to expand...

So do you think it would be better to just let him go in and quash the opposition out of existence (even if it includes a massacre) and return the country to the status quo? How then could any progress be made on dismantling the regime?

In other words, if you don't like this plan, I'd like to hear an alternative that will have real, good, positive, and lasting results including the ouster of Qaddafi.
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
So do you think it would be better to just let him go in and quash the opposition out of existence (even if it includes a massacre) and return the country to the status quo? How then could any progress be made on dismantling the regime?

In other words, if you don't like this plan, I'd like to hear an alternative that will have real, good, positive, and lasting results including the ouster of Qaddafi.
Click to expand...

What I don't like about the plan is its dishonesty. We are going to help the rebels, but we have to pretend we are only trying to "protect civilian areas".

The trouble with that is that we are going to do a half-arsed job of helping the rebels as a result, because we have no UN mandate to do more.

This isn't going to get rid of Gaddafi. It may slow or stop him defeating the revolt. Then again it may bring more west-Libyans round to supporting Gaddafi against foreign-backed eastern rebels.
 
Saying it's a cease fire doesn't make it so if he keeps killing, which is at least partly still underway.
 
boyntonstu said:
25 DEAD IN BOMBARDMENT BY GADDAFI FORCES

http://www.drudgereport.com/http://www.drudgereport.com/

Nobody kills more Arabs than fellow Arabs.
Click to expand...

Impressive degree of ignorance.

The Mongols appear to have racked up a fairly high kill total aftet the Siege of Baghdad.

If you count the algerians as arabs then the french were racking up multiple 100K kill totals fairly recently.

Even more recently Iran probably broke the 100K barrier against Iraq.

25 is nothing.
 
geni said:
Impressive degree of ignorance.

The Mongols appear to have racked up a fairly high kill total aftet the Siege of Baghdad.

If you count the algerians as arabs then the french were racking up multiple 100K kill totals fairly recently.

Even more recently Iran probably broke the 100K barrier against Iraq.

25 is nothing.
Click to expand...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
Iran

500,000 to 1,000,000 dead;[8][9][10][11][12]

Iranian government official figure of 188,015 soldiers, militia, and civilians killed;[13][14]

Economic loss of more than US$500 billion[10]


Iraq
Estimated 300,000 soldiers, militia, and civilians killed or wounded[citation needed]

Economic loss of more than US$500 billion[10]

Muslim vs Muslim


Very conservative figures.
 
There are claims that the a jet - one presumes Libyan - has been shot down over Benghazi
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...enghazi-Following-Warnings-From-Obama-Cameron
Jon@Sky:
Sky cameras capture pictures of military jet catching fire and crashing into Benghazi, throwing up large plume of smoke. Hurd says cheers can be heard on the ground

There follows a picture of the aircraft

phpW5TjC0libya-jet.jpg


It kind of looks like a drone with those elevated wings. First casaulty of war......
 
I screwed the pooch on the drone - there are much better photos showing a MiG
But BBC is reporting at the moment.
#
1028: BBC world affairs correspondent Alan Little in Tripoli said it was assumed the shot-down plane in Benghazi belonged to Col Gaddafi's forces, but it now appears it was flown by rebel forces.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom