our civil war could have been prevented if you were in charge

• At 22:50pm on 22nd Mar 2011, quietoaktree wrote:
  #11 LucyJ
  "So why not divide Libya into East Libya, which could be ruled by rebels who could install a democracy, and West Libya, which could be ruled by Gaddafi who could stay in power and rule over his followers?"
  
  --- Yep ! --- our civil war could have been prevented if you were in charge ?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 32. At 22:52pm on 22nd Mar 2011, publiusdetroit wrote:
  Ref 26 supersonicpenguin1-
  
  "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."
  
  One does get the impression there are people who think a 'NO-fly Zone' is established by using stern words stating to the affected party, "Don't fly your planes and helicopters anymore. Okay? It's not nice."
  
  They may just be parrots tethered to a stand, echoing the noise passing swiftly between their ears.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 33. At 23:03pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Dr Angus Walker wrote:
  It so sad that we suffer very good reporters but rubbish editors and commentators in the west. The latter are watching the UN mission like hawks, waiting for one little slip when an innocent civilian is accidentally killed by a NATO bomb, and will then conveniently forget to balance it, and the care taken by NATO to prevent such deaths against all the deaths caused by Gadaffi. The freedom won for the press is not always matched by their responsible use of it
  
  Complain about this comment
• 34. At 23:06pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Nostrano wrote:
  'Mission Creep' must be an American title. Otherwise it has amusing, and fitting English connotations.
  It could well work out to be a creep's mission, not only for having crept too much in the first place, but for having to contend with the increasingly complicated consequences.
  "Great question", sounds like a line from "Hot Shots". Maybe the sooner the Pentagon takes a back seat, the better.
  
  The coalition can't just go back and forth bombing from the air hoping vainly that the 'opposition forces' will manage somehow, without medical aid, food, if not water. If they've got new guns how come the coalition can't air drop them what they need?
  
  Unless it gets to the point where so much damage is done that the Gaddafian gang will be persuaded to go. As this is hardly likely, surely there has to come a time when ground forces should go in? Better still, as someone has already suggested, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could go in. Erdogan will gain some much needed credit from Europe if ever he dared make this commitment. Turkey has no problems going into Iraq on ignoble Kurd hunting expeditions. A Libyan engagement on Turkey's part would be a far more precious and far more appreciated contribution towards world stability. As a result, assuming it's successful, Europe might even be persuaded to allow Turkey, up until Istanbul that this, to be part of the EU.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 35. At 23:33pm on 22nd Mar 2011, JMM wrote:
  15. At 21:11pm on 22nd Mar 2011, rogershk wrote:
  
  "Meanwhile.. read up Kent State for a quick lesson how a government can kill its citizens using military force and got away with it."
  
  I was a university student on a US campus when the Kent State incident happened. I was appalled then, and it was a dark stain on the US. It is obvious that you do not know enough about it, however.
  
  The government did not order regular troops to fire on the students. Poorly trained national guardsmen fired on protesters throwing rocks and insults at them. Your interpretation is propagandistic nonsense.
  
  And no, I did not and do not like or approve of the actions of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. I was in agreement with some of the aims and philosophy of the protesters, but did not and do not support their resort to violent words and actions.
  
  
  Complain about this comment
• 36. At 23:37pm on 22nd Mar 2011, TimR1944 wrote:
  How did we get ourselves into this? A week ago we were focused on the tragedy in Japan - where we should be. Now within a few days we find ourselves in yet another war.
  
  Obama is simply doing exactly the same thing that Bush did, and we are yet again planning on getting rid of a dictator and 'installing' a government in its place. Once again we are waging a war we cannot afford in a part of the world where we are hated.
  
  Obama is getting away this because he is a left-wing Democrat and beloved in the media. No one dares to ask the hard questions and demand answers. While they grovel before him telling him he is wonderful, we have to watch while money and equipment and eventually manpower are poured into a conflict that may last for months - or years. We don't know. No one knows. The congress was not even consulted.
  
  We are supposed to be thrilled and honored that the British and the Canadians and the French (!) and the Spanish (!!) have decided that terrible Americans are not the world's greatest threat to peace anymore (at least today) - as we were told a very short time ago - and the UN has given its 'blessing' on this escapade. This is supposed to make it acceptable, while the US public is ignored and Obama wages war without asking anyone here.
  
  We know that this will only lead to a return to the usual, trendy anti-American hysterics and whining and moaning and carrying on, while we try to find some way to extricate ourselves from this mess.
  
  It is incredible. It is simply a replay of Iraq, with Gaddafi instead of Hussein - one horrible dictator instead of another. And we are dragged in again.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 37. At 23:42pm on 22nd Mar 2011, sayasay wrote:
  26, supersonicpenguin1
  
  Are you for real? I thought the nation pays its patriot-soldiers to take all risks under orders. The enactment of a NFZ is not total war; it is more like a live-firing exercise. Where only destruction of defined targets is the priority, destroying anything else is not part of the mission. In the setting up of the Libyan NFZ; abort the mission if you cannot destroy the anti-aircraft defences without incurring civilian casualties. If your orders permit civilian deaths, accept the orders gladly for their inherent latitude. And let the big-headed politicos sort out the interpretation of UN resolution 1973.
  But don’t ask for less risk to your person, or else I consider with much askance your military professionalism and personal courage.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 38. At 23:52pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Naveed wrote:
  How come West is protecting Civilians of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia and in the process has killed thousands of innocent civilians? Where is the logic? Why the Western World is silent about the massive killings in Kashmir, Palestine, Indian state of Gujarat, Chechnya? Is it because in the later case is the Hindu's and Jews are killing Muslims and they have the right to do so? I see duplicity and colonialism in the latest offensive against a Muslim Country. Since 09/11 terror attack, West has destroyed 5 Muslim Countries. Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya. By very conservative estimates Western forces have killed over 1/2 million people in these countries. If this is not Christian Crusade then what is it?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 39. At 23:53pm on 22nd Mar 2011, quietoaktree wrote:
  The BBC has just reported on the continuing torture and oppression of protestors and Human Rights activists in Bahrain.
  
  --- our double standards will be our undoing --unless it is stopped !