The Arab League has

• At 15:30pm on 20th Mar 2011, blefuscu wrote:
  'The Arab League has criticised the military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on Libya', says Sky News.
  
  Didn't take long, did it?
  
  African Union is now criticising the campaign.
  
  China and Russia unhappy.
  
  The chaos that is the politics of Islamic societies has sucked us in again.
  
  But that was inevitable.
  
  This is going to be for the long hawl.
  
  It'll be half a century before we emerge from the chaos and war.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 8. At 15:40pm on 20th Mar 2011, LucyJ wrote:
  Mardell: choice was forced upon him by the vigorous lead given by Britain and France.
  ------
  Why did u guys want to go so bad?
  
  
  An excerpt:
  Second, it would not surprise me if both governments — and that of the U.S. — came to a conclusion that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair elaborated in an article in The Times of London and Wall Street Journal. When faced with a crisis like that of Libya, Blair argued, "Inaction is a decision, a policy with consequences. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable; but it is every bit as much of a decision as acting."
  --------
  SO we decided to go b/c we thought action was better than inaction?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 9. At 15:44pm on 20th Mar 2011, LucyJ wrote:
  Bry: Exit strategies are difficult if enemies refuse to go.
  -------------
  And just who is going to take down Gadafi and sons?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 10. At 15:53pm on 20th Mar 2011, Nostrano wrote:
  Qatar has deployed its airforce today to participate in the military operation "Aube de l'Odyssée". Le Figaro
  
  This in an unheard of commitment from an Arab State, and seems to herald the possibility of greater co-operation and understanding between Middle Eastern and Euro-American cultures, isolating more the bellicose elements who are beginning to look as though they belong to another age, which of course they do.
  
  Often one hears European and Americans, well as Gaddafians and Madsidsjeans of course, accuse the West and Europe 'for going in after the oil'. For years one has heard this nonsense, as if we aren't paying enough already to prove that it's hardly the case. It's fine to own petrol resources, but one still has to have clients to sell it. It's probable that an alternative energy will be perfected, if it isn't already the case, long before the fossil fuel resources run dry in any case. Then all the nations who have been sitting on their wealth, including all those getting so wealthy, (in spite of Islam that in principle prohibits speculation) will have to find alternative means of perpetuating their extravagant standard of living.
  
  I agree with you Mr Mardell. And would put such feelings of moral obligation first.
  Sarkozy has had a rough time compared to Cameron. If he has come through the unanticipated International economical crisis smiling less, he has at least come through it stoically. He is in no way a populist who would put on a show to please the crowd or prepare for the next elections. I don't think Cameron is either. Sarkozy would be criticised whatever he does in any case. From the start both he and Cameron knew that one can't stand idly by whilst Gaddafi murders his own people. They were both very frustrated by the unjustified delays.
  
  There's no doubt that Obama's hanging back, has it's positive aspects, but it's highly probable that his delay in reacting incurred a serious and irresponsible risk.