[BISHI]

If we are enforcing a no fly zone to protect the protestors in Benghazi - why the hell is Gadfaffis compound in TRIPOLI being bombed............surely this is outside the agreed mandate and is a obvious attempt to kill Gadaffi..

[Confucius]

Because:

Security Council authorizes ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in Libya

Security Council authorizes ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in Libya

Targeting a command and control centre is therefore entirely legal.

[lucasisking]

Whilst I believe it is morally right to intervene in defence of civilian life, I am starting to get an ill feeling about all this. This mornings news:

An RAF tornado sortie is aborted after our pilots identify civilians at the target site.

BBC News - RAF Tornados abort mission in Libya

And in contrast to that, we have Libyan civilians acting as voluntary human shields to protect military targets. In the news report I saw, we had a pro-gadaffi woman whooping and flag-waving, whilst cradling her sleeping child (who presumably didn’t ‘volunteer’ for human shield duty).

Do the two examples above alarmingly demonstrate the vast gulf between our attitudes to the preservation of life & liberty, and those of the people we are supposed to be helping? Do they want to be saved? Does democracy and life mean less to them than patriotism and martyrdom?

Seeing children being placed in harms way by spellbound Gadaffi supporters makes me think we could have made a grave error after all.

[Bald Monkey]

Originally Posted by BISHI

If we are enforcing a no fly zone to protect the protestors in Benghazi - why the hell is Gadfaffis compound in TRIPOLI being bombed............surely this is outside the agreed mandate and is a obvious attempt to kill Gadaffi..

Command and control centers and radar emplacements etc are all part of the infrastructure that needs to be removed to remove the threat to the allied air sorties. It's not just a case of shooting down planes.

This is why so many were against the no-fly zone AFAIK.

I hope the Human Shield tactic was expected, it is straight out of the handbook! As is placing AA installations in residental areas etc.. Which is why so many suggested that airstrikes alone will not be 100% effective, unless the allies decide to go for those targets anyway, which I doubt will happen.

The whole line between a no-fly zone and aiding one side in a civil war is just western retorhic IMHO. Either they take sides or they don't I can't see how the allies can state they are not taking sides or affecting the outcome of the war after such action?? Just the morale boost alone to the rebels is going to make a difference.

No matter how much they try to avoid the death of civillians it will happen, 'smart' bombs etc are not as smart as they make out. And even if by some miracle the allies manage to not kill any directly, what do you think will happen to the women and children who do support Gadaffi if/when the rebels take the various Gadaffi strongholds? Those who have been responsible for backing and taking part in atrocities for decades? If they aren't killed in the initial fighting I suspect there will still be problems of human rights abuses on both sides. It's war, people will die. In many ways delaying the inevitable to simply appease the AU and appear to be moderate in the attacks could well lead to greater number of dead civillians as the whole war is drawn out for years. Leveling the Gaddaffi compounds and killing him and his inner circle asap might actually result is fewer lives being loss, but the wider consequences could be extreme so in many ways the calls for less action and less interference are indirectly possibly going to kill more people??

I wonder if the Allies hope that when the inevitable becomes apprant to those still backing gaddaffi they will take care of him. But they themselves, unless given some way out will simply be fighting for their own survival anyway. They must know time is on their side.

[Rock Da Bass]

Liam Fox is an utter clown

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by Rock Da Bass

Liam Fox is an utter clown

Thank you for that in-depth contribution.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by lucasisking

Whilst I believe it is morally right to intervene in defence of civilian life, I am starting to get an ill feeling about all this. This mornings news:

An RAF tornado sortie is aborted after our pilots identify civilians at the target site.

BBC News - RAF Tornados abort mission in Libya

And in contrast to that, we have Libyan civilians acting as voluntary human shields to protect military targets. In the news report I saw, we had a pro-gadaffi woman whooping and flag-waving, whilst cradling her sleeping child (who presumably didn’t ‘volunteer’ for human shield duty).

Do the two examples above alarmingly demonstrate the vast gulf between our attitudes to the preservation of life & liberty, and those of the people we are supposed to be helping? Do they want to be saved? Does democracy and life mean less to them than patriotism and martyrdom?

Seeing children being placed in harms way by spellbound Gadaffi supporters makes me think we could have made a grave error after all.

History will be the ultimate judge of the actions taken by men today, but history has always shown regardless of where you have a dictatorship (under whatever guise), it's not strictly accurate to say *every* citizen is against their leader. Whether they have been brainwashed or are genuinely in support of their own free will, I think the leaders and military commanders would have been aware of pro-Gaddafi support during this campaign

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Rock Da Bass

Liam Fox is an utter clown

Why? Liam Fox has the potential to be a superb Defence Secretary (asusming he can survive politically).

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by Steven

History will be the ultimate judge of the actions taken by men today, but history has always shown regardless of where you have a dictatorship (under whatever guise), it's not strictly accurate to say *every* citizen is against their leader. Whether they have been brainwashed or are genuinely in support of their own free will, I think the leaders and military commanders would have been aware of pro-Gaddafi support during this campaign

I agree. That will be the 'sticking' point and the UN forces will have to play the politics very carefully after they have bombed the crap out of them. No gung-ho stuff please boys! *Cough*

Forty years of Gaddafi's leadership (dictatorship) will present a lot of inertia to change (of whatever kind). As well as normal Arab support (Big Man politics), there is the human resistance to something new.

[peebly]

People on twitter are saying one of gaddafi's sons has died from injuries he sustained in an airstrike.

[Bald Monkey]

If it's on Twitter it must be true

[Wild Weasel]

Originally Posted by peebly

People on twitter are saying one of gaddafi's sons has died from injuries he sustained in an airstrike.

Not an airstrike per se, but supposedly caused by a Libyan pilot who decided to Kamikaze his aircraft into the Gadaffi compound at Bab al-Azizia military base near Tripoli.

[Palladio]

While Gaddafi and his supporters are geting a pounding on this thread and at home lets just remember what US troops on the ground are capable of -

"In the most despicable act of sadistic voyeurism by the US Military since the pictures from Abu Ghraib surfaced. The Guardian reports that the US Army 'Kill Team' -- 12 soldiers currently facing trial for senseless murders of Afghan civilians -- took more than 4000 photographs of their actions, including shots of themselves posing with the dead as though they were hunting trophies.

The German paper Der Spiegel is set to publish a lengthy piece accompanied by just three of the pictures, which are so horrific that both NATO and military leaders in Afghanistan are preparing for public protest, riots or worse."

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Palladio

While Gaddafi and his supporters are geting a pounding on this thread and at home lets just remember what US troops on the ground are capable of -

"In the most despicable act of sadistic voyeurism by the US Military since the pictures from Abu Ghraib surfaced. The Guardian reports that the US Army 'Kill Team' -- 12 soldiers currently facing trial for senseless murders of Afghan civilians -- took more than 4000 photographs of their actions, including shots of themselves posing with the dead as though they were hunting trophies.

The German paper Der Spiegel is set to publish a lengthy piece accompanied by just three of the pictures, which are so horrific that both NATO and military leaders in Afghanistan are preparing for public protest, riots or worse."

Humour me- what is the site that quote is from?

[Confucius]

And indeed what on earth has it to do with UN resolution 1973?

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by Palladio

While Gaddafi and his supporters are geting a pounding on this thread and at home lets just remember what US troops on the ground are capable of -

"In the most despicable act of sadistic voyeurism by the US Military since the pictures from Abu Ghraib surfaced. The Guardian reports that the US Army 'Kill Team' -- 12 soldiers currently facing trial for senseless murders of Afghan civilians -- took more than 4000 photographs of their actions, including shots of themselves posing with the dead as though they were hunting trophies.

The German paper Der Spiegel is set to publish a lengthy piece accompanied by just three of the pictures, which are so horrific that both NATO and military leaders in Afghanistan are preparing for public protest, riots or worse."

Perhaps you would like to list all the atrocities committed by mad dog gaddafi's regime? You know, the one we're currently dealing with.

Or perhaps you'd like to lift another unrelated piece of history and insert it into this thread?

[jayden28]

how come no one ever seems to help out the poor millions of africans who have been dealing with this type of **** for decades from there leaders, it must be down to all the oil libya has.

[Vida7]

Originally Posted by lucasisking

Eh? In this instance Britain took the initiative and America followed afterwards- much like WWII. They will do the bulk of the work as they have the biggest military.



Why is that insane? You dont think protecting the flow of oil is important?



With respect- thats the job they signed up for isn't it? Exactly what wars do you think they should be fighting? Or should we not get involved in any wars- in which case we may as well sack our entire military and save ourselves billions.

Wars that are justified not just because big brother America says to our idiot prime minister jump and he replies how high! We always bend over to them yanks. Get involved in stuff we shouldn't yet were in a mess ourselves but thats not enough for our prime minister who has decided to join the gang!

Why should we protect the Oil its not ours its Libyas and they can do what they want with it. You don't go to your neighbours and raid his fridge do you?

Things will only get worse now. Most of the Arab nations have been run by someone in power for long time. We as the West were happy with that aslong as them dictators danced to our tunes but then when they didn't time to get rid of them. The one exception was Mubarak who America really never wanted to go but the people made it happen. Mubarak was the puppet of America and Israel and there were serious worries that if he goes some maniac with anti western views might come in.

After Libya will we go attack Saudi Arabia (believe me World War 3 would kick off), Bahrain, Iran (its already been planned), Syria and the list could go on

The middle east is full of dictators. Saudi people were also protesting but they handed out money but once it runs out they will be back on the streets and the goverment has treated them with excessive force too will we go in there too? No because the Saudis are still ok with America so they will be fine.

[Rock Da Bass]

Originally Posted by Confucius

Thank you for that in-depth contribution.

Better than your constant digs at posters

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by jayden28

how come no one ever seems to help out the poor millions of africans who have been dealing with this type of **** for decades from there leaders, it must be down to all the oil libya has.

It's been covered already.

And I seem to recall mad dog gaddafi was happily selling his oil to us infidels before all this kicked off.

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by Vida7

Wars that are justified not just because big brother America says to our idiot prime minister jump and he replies how high! We always bend over to them yanks. Get involved in stuff we shouldn't yet were in a mess ourselves but thats not enough for our prime minister who has decided to join the gang!

Why should we protect the Oil its not ours its Libyas and they can do what they want with it. You don't go to your neighbours and raid his fridge do you?

Things will only get worse now. Most of the Arab nations have been run by someone in power for long time. We as the West were happy with that aslong as them dictators danced to our tunes but then when they didn't time to get rid of them. The one exception was Mubarak who America really never wanted to go but the people made it happen. Mubarak was the puppet of America and Israel and there were serious worries that if he goes some maniac with anti western views might come in.

After Libya will we go attack Saudi Arabia (believe me World War 3 would kick off), Bahrain, Iran (its already been planned), Syria and the list could go on

The middle east is full of dictators. Saudi people were also protesting but they handed out money but once it runs out they will be back on the streets and the goverment has treated them with excessive force too will we go in there too? No because the Saudis are still ok with America so they will be fine.

Is delusional ranting your normal form of posting? Just curious.

[Vida7]

Originally Posted by Confucius

Is delusional ranting your normal form of posting? Just curious.

Everyone has an opinion accept it and move on its a forum

[Jamezinho]

Originally Posted by Confucius

And I seem to recall mad dog gaddafi was happily selling his oil to us infidels before all this kicked off.

This point seems to be going over some people's heads. Western oil companies have been pumping in Libya for years, and other companies have contracts to begin extracting oil.

Oil & Gas Companies in Libya – a Who’s Who | Oil Blog - Oil & Gas Company Analysis, Oil Traders, Energy Companies, Gas Companies, Energy Consultants

We already have access to Libya's oil.

Libya's economy is heavily dependent on oil exports. They have little else to sell to the world. They have the commodity, the west has the investment and the customer base.

There was no need for military action to secure oil that western companies were already tapped-in to.

[Badger0-0]

There was no need for military action to secure oil that western companies were already tapped-in to.

As I said earlier I find the whole situation very strange and this is the part I can't fathom out.
Hadn't BP just signed a massive deal to pump oil?

All I know is this action has nothing to do with anything humanitarian.
The western powers have already proven they don't give a stuff about that, if you consider other countries already mentioned.

I'm still reminded by that old saying that "there's no money in peace".

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

As I said earlier I find the whole situation very strange and this is the part I can't fathom out.
Hadn't BP just signed a massive deal to pump oil?

All I know is this action has nothing to do with anything humanitarian.
The western powers have already proven they don't give a stuff about that, if you consider other countries already mentioned.

I'm still reminded by that old saying that "there's no money in peace".

Excellent.

Governments fail to intervene and they are venal, corrupt and interested only in themselves.

And yet

Governments intervene and they are venal, corrupt and interested only in themselves.

I'm glad the correct course of action is so clear to world leaders. I'm amazed they get it wrong so often.

[Palladio]

Originally Posted by Confucius

And indeed what on earth has it to do with UN resolution 1973?

Absolutely nothing. It just goes to show mans inhumanity to man no matter which side of the fence you sit. The media will no doubt go into overdrive to show how evil the Gaddaffi supporters are and how justified this action is.

The whole history of the middle east is full of hyprocrisy from the western powers.

I've noticed that Israel appears to be very quiet over the last month or so but do you really believe they are just sitting back and seeing what happens. Not on your nelly. The US does nothing in the middle east without the approval of Israel.

Why do most people believe all that is fed to them. Do most people believe everything their Government tells them because history will surely prove them wrong.

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. –James Bovard (1994)

[Wild Weasel]

Yawn. As far as I can see, the media are too busy reporting when our aircraft are taking off and parroting Libyan propaganda statements. They seem to think that adding "of course we can't independently verify this" makes it OK.

[Badger0-0]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

Excellent.

Governments fail to intervene and they are venal, corrupt and interested only in themselves.

And yet

Governments intervene and they are venal, corrupt and interested only in themselves.

I'm glad the correct course of action is so clear to world leaders. I'm amazed they get it wrong so often.

Er, what's your point?

I'm very sure the world leaders are taking the correct course of action from their POV, because they are only interested in themselves, hence there must be something in it for them.
Otherwise they would have intervened in East Timor, for example.

You'll be telling me they do it out of pure human kindness next

As I said, this time I am genuinely confused though and don't see the angle.
What's to be gained from deposing someone who's just come back into the fold

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Er, what's your point?

My point is that apparently governments are apparently wrong whether they act or not.

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

I'm very sure the world leaders are taking the correct course of action from their POV, because they are only interested in themselves, hence there must be something in it for them.
Otherwise they would have intervened in East Timor, for example.

"They" (Australia mainly) did.

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

You'll be telling me they do it out of pure human kindness next

Would you rather we left a man, in power from a military coup, to kill his own subjects? That's the better option?

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

As I said, this time I am genuinely confused though and don't see the angle.
What's to be gained from deposing someone who's just come back into the fold

Because, we've broadly been played for fools by him. Failing to act sends the message that actively killing your own people is A-OK. Governments aren't perfect but if you disagree with this one, you can vote against it in 2012. The people in Benghazi will just be killed instead.

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by Palladio

The whole history of the middle east is full of hyprocrisy from the western powers.

There's been a fair bit of **** stirring by the eastern powers too.

Pretty obvious which mast you nail your colours to.