- 20. At 21:51pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Iwilltellyouthis wrote:
- 21. At 21:57pm on 22nd Mar 2011, David Lilley wrote: How about the following end-game?
We continue to degrade Gadaffi's military hardware. If we cannot make air-strikes in urban areas we can cut off the supply lines until they have no ammunition left in the towns where they are engaged. We then go home. Mission accomplished at a minimum cost.
Anything else would be bad news for everyone concerned.
-To do more would be to outstay our welcome and make us look like imperialists when we are only there for humanitarian reasons and these will be achieved shortly.
-To do more would lead to imbalance and we don't know whether the rebels will be our friends tomorrow. We were there to remove an imbalance of arms and might. We don't wish to create an imbalance in favour of the rebels that may see them take revenge on Gadaffi supporters.
-If we could demonstarte that such humanitarian operations can be conducted quickly and cost effectively we can send the right message to other dictatorial regimes around the world such that they understand what they can and cannot get away with.
The longer we remain the higher the cost and the less the appetite the international community will have for similar engagements in the future.
If either the Gadaffi supporters or the rebels request further outside help to defend themselves there is a very simple medicine to prevent civil war or vengence attacks. They should meet the cost upfront. If you don't like the Policing costs then don't commit crimes.
This is easy for me to say. I have not lost anything or anyone in the conflict.
But it should also be easy for a citizen of Bengazzi to say thank you for saving our skins and in return we will not use your help as a starting point for a civil war such that you may regret helping us and decline to help others in a similar situation in future.
- 22. At 22:04pm on 22nd Mar 2011, d_m wrote: #5. William Johnson-Smith:
"Personally, I think this is a rather ill-thought out piece of journalism."
I had pretty much the same reaction. Talking heads doing what they do best...
- 23. At 22:04pm on 22nd Mar 2011, cyberwendy wrote: Bush must be laughing his head off.
- 24. At 22:07pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Dancing_Hamster wrote: For this conflict to end it surely needs one side to defeat the other; yet if either tries a decisive knock-out blow, presumably the UN mandate kicks in. There is surely no peaceful way to end a bloody civil war.
I think there is little hope of installing a western style democratic system in a civil war torn Muslim country which has had no such tradition or values. These “troubles” could go on for years.
Partition, perhaps?
- 25. At 22:13pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Nolan Elmes-Metcalfe wrote: As it seems to be clear to everyone now that the aim is to effect the removal of Gaddafi by `all means necessary' and pundits and some politicians are talking `mission creep', why not just get it over with and go for it. Don't give the wobblers the time to weaken resolve amongst the allies. Democracy is what we all want but the way some countries dithered about ways to protect people from being murdered reminded me of Ents discussing going to war in the Lord of the Rings
- 26. At 22:21pm on 22nd Mar 2011, supersonicpenguin1 wrote: As a retired fighter pilot who has taken part in no fly zone operations, it frustrates me that the general public and press do not understand the need to remove the adversary's air defence structure. Our air crews risk their lives on every mission, we have to give them a decent chance of survival by removing the missiles, radars and the command structure which could destroy them. Without this precursor, they cannot safely enforce a no fly zone without overwhelming risk.
- 27. At 22:31pm on 22nd Mar 2011, RikusF wrote: I hate war, no reasonable person wants it, but what I've come to realize is that the military is more like an ax than a scalpel, better at toppling a dictator than bring him to reason – and when that happens who will be the next Gaddafi in Libya crowned by the west? Does it make a difference? Remember that Col Gaddafis’ supporters will freely sacrifice themselves as human shields for a person we see as evil, but why is that? Why does Gaddafi have that level of support from seemingly normal people (al-be-they bad dancers)? Next question should also be why so many former colonial powers have such similar dictators/bad government that seems to just impoverish and enslave the majority of people they govern? We see it in the middle-east but that is just the tip of the rest of Africa. The power and money always seems to be controlled by a minority group who supports an oppressive dictator, but, why is that so? People claim “big oil” and all other such business opportunities but most of these countries don’t have oil? Most of former colonial countries borders follow no natural boundary and most were first drawn at the end of WW1 with the Treaty of Versailes – same treaty that led to rise of Hitler and root of most evils ever since – including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and those are just a few of the nations where American soldiers have died. Look at the map of the US, original 13 colonies followed natural lines such as rivers & mountains while the rest of the US, further out west, has straight lines and were created in a board room with no regard to local populations, geography etc. Look at Europe; hundreds of years of wars created those borders. Colonial countries were drawn up regardless of geography, local populations, or representation by colonial powers in Versailles. Every one of these countries suffer from ethnic groups struggling for control of one nation, one central power, and all the wealth and ability to control their own destiny and the futures of their children. Who would not support a charismatic leader if that makes you part of the “in crowd”, not being “in crowd” means loss of control and hope for the future. I love democracy and America. The original American model might just work in these former colonial countries. Get rid of Gaddafi, exile, or bullet and make Libya a federation of regions, defined by ethnic groups and natural borders, along with a “weak” national structure similar to pre civil war US and a young democracy. Then allow Libyans to find their own destiny as a unified country or regions united by similarities rather than the mistakes made at Versailles and the dictators that one central power government creates.
- 28. At 22:41pm on 22nd Mar 2011, tuulen wrote:
Apparently there could be a limit as to US participation in the Libya mission. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution provides that only US Congress could have an authority to declare war. Yet for the past 60 years, since the Korean War, several US presidents have gone around that constitutional provision, in one way or another, but the War Powers Resolution of 1973 further clarifies the limits of presidential authority. Yet despite such clarification, apparently US presidents have continued to engage US military forces, as President Obama has now done, but there also has been and now is some controversy.
- 29. At 22:44pm on 22nd Mar 2011, BigJim1 wrote: The main driver of the "No fly zone" was not Obama or Sarkozy but Cameron, who has not the slightest idea what it involved and what the implications of it were. It was done to make him appear an international statesman with the added benefit of diverting attention from what he is doing to destroy the fabric of society in the UK.
He, like Blair before him, will live to regret it albeit he will never admit to it, again like Blair.The sooner there is regime change here in the UK the better we will all be.
- 30. At 22:45pm on 22nd Mar 2011, The Cool Ruler Rides Again wrote: This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the
الأربعاء، 23 مارس 2011
Iwilltellyouthis
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
This "attack" is being reported in the Daily Telegraph which alleges that a child lost both legs as a result of it. If this did really happen why is there no mention of it by other broadcasters or newspapers?