oh great - another war

[AtW]

Have you actually read the links? In particular the second one, which quotes the text of the UN resolution?

Yes, it's pretty clear resolution: "to take all necessary measures" to "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" - that means taking out all military assets all around the country, and most importantly mad dog himself as well as his clique.

Reports are that Saudi Arabia are joining in - that's First Iraq War all over again - just usage of force backed by UN. The most important thing now is to make sure mad dog is dealt with fully - not leaving any chances that may cause another war there.

[shaunbhoy]

Have you actually read the links? In particular the second one, which quotes the text of the UN resolution?

You mean the bit that included this? "while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"

Yes I did. And I was able to comprehend the thrust of its meaning too. How far did you get before you got hopelessly lost?

[Freamon]

You mean the bit that included this? "while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"

Yes I did. And I was able to comprehend the thrust of its meaning too. How far did you get before you got hopelessly lost?

I suggest you read up on the legal definition of "occupation force" (or just read the second article more carefully). You will discover that it doesn't preclude the use of ground troops.

[AtW]

I suggest you read up on the legal definition of "occupation force" (or just read the second article more carefully). You will discover that it doesn't preclude the use of ground troops.

The legal definition that Mr Gaddafi should be pondeing now is not "occupation force", but "war crimes" - he's got a case to answer me thinking.

[MarillionFan]

The legal definition that Mr Gaddafi should be pondeing now is not "occupation force", but "war crimes" - he's got a case to answer me thinking.

Really?

Gaddafi is a war criminal for
mobilising troops against civilians but under George Bush/Blair 100s of 1000 civilians have been bombed & killed by Us and Uk forces but that's Ok as that's collateral damage.

[Shimano105]

oooh we love a good war don't we?

Except that as there is no mandate for regime change there is no end game. Gadaffi plays cat and mouse for a few years until someone decides this isn't working and we need to invade.

All this paid for by our austerity measures - great. Jobs lost, libraries closed, police (and strangely, armed forces) are sacked, essentially to pay for another doomed mission to secure some cheap oil and make us feel important.

Of course will the rebels thank us, or turn against us for launching a crusade on another muslim country?

[amcdonald]

You mean the bit that included this? "while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"

Yes I did. And I was able to comprehend the thrust of its meaning too. How far did you get before you got hopelessly lost?

That doesn't exclude paying of his mercenaries to switch sides, or sending an army of mercenries in, as they wouldn't be an occupation force as Libya already has them

[PAH]

there is no mandate for regime change

Helping the rebels under the pretence of protecting the civilians seems like encouraging a regime change to me.

Not sure why the UN is so up for it though. Influence by the arab nations who want Gadafi out for some reason?

Isn't this basically a civil war?

Did I miss the UN sanctioning military action against Mugabe and all the other dictators who have brought their countries to their knees and now rely on international aid?

Is this still about oil?

Is it safe to go on a mediterranean holiday while it's all kicking off?

[AtW]

Gaddafi is a war criminal for mobilising troops against civilians but under George Bush/Blair 100s of 1000 civilians have been bombed & killed by Us and Uk forces but that's Ok as that's collateral damage.

Yes - forces have to break specific rules of war in order to become war criminals, in mad dog's case he used artyllery against civilians (there was no foreign army there), see Serbia's precedent: it's more or less exactly the same case, only there is actually a UN resolution in this case which is very good. One can only wonder what bribes the West offered to Russia in order to avoid veto.

[Waldorf]

I agree with the general thrust of this campaign, Gadaffi is an evil mad man, although I must admit that I do wonder why we (the UN) do not do something about the world's other tyrants.

I can't see that this will be much more expensive will it? We are only part of the action, and apart from the cost of the bombs and fuel, I would guess that our pilots/sailors would be training and taking part on exercises anyway?

Then again I am not a military expert!