BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:27 PM

Sorry, but Pinochet didn't "seize power with American help" any more than "the CIA murdered Diem."

The US was glad that Allende was gone and did nothing to remove Pinochet once he was in control, but the US did not put him there. Ambitious tyrants like Pinochet are capable of launching their own successful coups - as did Col. Gaddafi. As far as the US was concerned, once he was in power, Pinochet was the lesser evil compared to the possibility of a powerful Cuban-Soviet influence on Chile at just the time the US had been forced from Vietnam. The former KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin has written that Allende was in fact on the KGB payroll. See C. M. Andrew & V. Mitrokhin, "The World was Going Our Way" (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 2005), p. 80ff.

International politics makes strange bedfellows. But the Cold War's over, and it's time to give up the propaganda myths.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 11:20 AM

pinochet seized power with american help, and overthrew a democraticaly elected person Allende.
that is fact RON,

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 12:13 AM

Constitution instituted in Chile in 1980 prescribed an 8-year term--which Pinochet held to.

Please tell us about the Libyan constitution and what term of power has been allotted by it to the Brother Leader.   What is the Brother Leader's official term of office?   And please enlighten us as to your secret sources which indicate that at the end of that term of office, he will be willing to step down--for somebody other than a member of his own family.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 11:57 PM

Pinochet "embodied the state".    Evidence please.

And Gaddafi's obvious desire for "victory or martyrdom"   tells us all we need to know about his flexibility--except to touchingly naive posters who desperately want to believe he is just another reasonable person unjustifiably attacked by--who else--the evil West.

Certainly is fascinating that the people opposing Western involvement in Libya are such world-class masters of mewling piteously that the West always supports tyrants.   Yet when the West attacks a tyrant, suddenly that's not what said people wanted after all.

The suspicion arises that these posters don't even know what they themselves want--except to be card-carrying members of the "ain't it awful" school.

Whatever it is, "ain't it awful".

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 11:53 PM

If it's comic relief you're after, try this:

Grrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 11:42 PM

"most of the USA presidents"

Another delightful poster with a serious reading problem--very common on the Left, it appears.

One person for 40 years--and that would be which president?

Assassination squads all over the world to kill dissidents from his own country.    Details please.


All the power centralized in himself.    As I recall there are such things in the US as Congress and the judiciary. Please tell us how much power--separate from the Brother Leader---any legislative or judicial body has in Libya.

Perhaps the poster should return to folk music.   Perhaps he has some inkling of that.

His post is however wonderful comic relief--and yet another sterling example of why folkies have such a enviable reputation in the wider world for brilliant strategic thinking.

Please, give us more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 06:33 PM

I think "justice" is a big one, 999.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 05:47 PM

ALL wars are fought for freedom (or to oppose tyrany. Else, how would one attract soldiers?

"Attention, ladies and gentlemen, we need some soldiers to go fight and possibly die for their country. It is in the name of freedom and democracy!"


or


"Attention, ladies and gentlemen, we need some soldiers to go fight and possibly die for their country. It is in the name of an oil company or multinational!"

Simple sales technique. WHICH ad would YOU run?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 05:23 PM

Please name one vicious tyrant, preferably one who has been in power for about 40 years, considers himself to embody the state, and has had the delightful habit of sending assassination squads all over the world to deal with dissenters, who has been willing to give up a portion of his power over his own people.
   most of the usa presidents since the second world war, through the CIA.
AND the macCarthy era, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY,deprived of the abilty to work[robeson seeger etc] the undermining of Cuba, the undemocratic overthrow of Allende, the support of Pinochet., the involvement in Vietnam, all this in the name of freedom, but at the same time boosting their economy, through armament sales
its about time America stopped acting as a world police force, and stopped this rubbish about the land of the free and freedom and democracy

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:44 AM

Pinochet was only in power for 17 years before he stepped down in 1990, with another eight years as Commander-in-Chief, but otherwise he fits the description Ron gives quite well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:20 AM

"should know, is"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 07:11 AM

The issue here, as even our charmingly naive friends who oppose Western involvement in Libya should know is how much power Gadhafi will continue to exercise over his own people.

Please name one vicious tyrant, preferably one who has been in power for about 40 years, considers himself to embody the state, and has had the delightful habit of sending assassination squads all over the world to deal with dissenters, who has been willing to give up a portion of his power over his own people.

Furthermore, the recent experiences of Tunesia and Egypt are object lessons to Gadhafi of what happens to a ruler when he is in fact willing to cede some of his power to independent voices.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 04:29 AM

No sanctions only because Russia would use its veto.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 03:49 AM

For gods sake Teribus, who said anything about "stealing oil"?
Read gnu's post.
Access to oil rights is the reason we have been involved in this pantomime, whilst all around protesters are shot...... and ignored by the West.
Today, the West again told Assad what a naughty boy he was and how he must stop being horrid to his people!

Sanctions?.....no
Military action.....of course not!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 12:09 AM

"Isn't the most obvious difference, that Libya has oil?"

Which Libya sold to the countries of Western Europe, his main customers were Italy, Germany & France. Are you saying that NATO schemed away to attack Libya to "steal" Libyan oil in the same way as people claimed that Iraq was all about the USA "stealing" Iraq's oil? We all know that the latter most certainly did not happen, and at the end of all this I would predict that Italy, Germany & France will still buy their oil and gas from Libya and pay market price for it (Same as the US does for what token amounts of oil it buys from Iraq).

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 11:26 PM

"whether most LIbyans feel that way."

The reason this seems to be a question is the same reason it would have been a question in the 3rd Reich.

Negotiation with a vicious tyrant who considers himself to embody the state-- and who has in fact centralized all power in himself--- has already been tried before.    Not a happy outcome. Perhaps you recall this.    Or perhaps you don't. In which case you need to do more reading.

Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 07:15 PM

"What is open to question is whether there is any evidence that most Libyans feel that way."

If you've been following the events from a news source that has reporters in the field it is pretty clear that a large majority of Libyans want to see an end to the regime of Gaddafi and his family. Do you not think that if Gaddafi had the support that he claims to have he would not be allowing reporters the freedom to report to the world from among them instead of orchestrating support rallies and broadcasting them on state controlled tv?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 07:06 PM

Libya/oil. BP was just setting up ops (I know the guy that was in charge of ops there.) Quacky was driving a hard bargain. He ain't negotiating with the Brits anymore is he? And, the rest of the Arab nations?... well, the Brits, Germans, French, Dutch, Yanks, Russians... they don't like getting fucked over eh? As for them not having any oil??? Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 06:05 PM

Nobody would dispute that there are a lot of Libyans who want rid of Gaddafi. What is open to question is whether there is any evidence that most Libyans feel that way.

It may be true that they do, but it is wrong to take it for granted that it true and that the rebels represent the majority.

Only in the circumstances of a ceasefire could it be possible to try to find ways of finding out the truth about that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:50 PM

Well you've made your case T ....but made hard work of it.

Isn't the most obvious difference, that Libya has oil?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:31 PM

GSS " it's the people there who wish to implement regime change.
how do you know this have you been there"

Care to tell me what is was that the Libyan civilians who were protesting about when they were gunned down by Gaddafi's troops and mercenaries in February this year? "Longer beds and more time in them" perhaps?? Or do you doubt that they were gunned down at all?? Unfortunately too many corpses and too many eye-witness statements from both sides to refute what happened.

"so why didnt the west invade these countries, the inconsistency is so obvious"

Tunisia - The Tunisian Army ensured that the threat to the civilian population was never realised, so no request from the Arab League was necessary.

Egypt - Same thing as in Tunisia, no request from the Arab League to act.

Palestine - Yasser Arafat was just a crook just like his Uncle before him who preyed of the Arabs of Palestine. Basically the non-Palestinian Arabs in the states surrounding Palestine could not give two hoots for Palestine or its people.

Syria - No request for international intervention from the Arab League or the GCC. Probably due to Syria's alliance with Iran - nobody knows where that can of worms would go if anybody intervened. The US has requested UN for sanctions against the Ba'athist regime in Syria.

Yemen - No request for international intervention from the Arab League or GCC because the GCC is already involved in resolving the situation.

Bahrain - No request for international intervention as Saudi Arabia and the GCC were called in by the rulers of Bahrain. "Protests" in Bahrain from "guest workers" mask a destabilisation campaign instigated by Iran.

Libya - The ruler of Libya declared war on his own people, and when his own troops refused to carry out his orders, he engaged the services of mercenary troops to do his bidding. Libya's neighbours were both in a state of turmoil so the Arab League and the GCC took the matter to the UN Security Council and asked them to act.

See any differences? I most certainly can.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:44 PM

I just noticed the bit from T about Banking bosses £million salaries and bonuses being "performance related".......who says that its only Americans who dont understand irony?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:26 PM

Fortunately Teribus, you are not in a position yet to sanction regime change.....but what about the UN resolutions, International Law etc, the backbone of our "liberal democracy".....are they too, to depend on circumstance?

The disparity between £17 billion?? to £50 and £6 million to £50, makes little difference to the man or woman on £50...

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 12:41 PM

Par for the course in the Arab world though, there was that epitome of good leadership Yasser Arafat who syphoned off billions of what was supposed to be aid for his destitute and impoverished Palestinian people. the Tunisian ex-President who loaded up a transport aircraft with gold bullion before he legged it for the border. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has stashed away millions and is now under investigation for it.
yes, so why didnt the west invade these countries, the inconsistency is so obvious

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 12:39 PM

Libya is a differnent kettle of fish - it's the people there who wish to implement regime change.
how do you know this have you been there, or are you forming this view from western propoganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 11:32 AM

"....do you really subscribe to the idea of powerful countries enforcing regime change."

Depends upon the circumstances:

As per Iraq in 2003 under Saddam Hussein yes

Libya is a differnent kettle of fish - it's the people there who wish to implement regime change. The UN; NATO; Arab League & GCC are doing in Libya today what should have been done to help the Iraqi Shia Arabs in Southern Iraq in 1991, in the aftermath of Desert Storm.

Salaries and bonuses of "the financial bosses" and CEO's of multi-Nationals are different entirely to the pocket money doled out to Gaddafi's sons. The Salaries and bonuses of the formed are "performance" related the £170,000,000 per year is just his cut of the proceeds of a massive and ongoing kleptocracy that has been in operation for the best part of forty years. Par for the course in the Arab world though, there was that epitome of good leadership Yasser Arafat who syphoned off billions of what was supposed to be aid for his destitute and impoverished Palestinian people. the Tunisian ex-President who loaded up a transport aircraft with gold bullion before he legged it for the border. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has stashed away millions and is now under investigation for it.

I still think that the comparative ratios would still end up as astronomical for the Gaddafi:Libyan Worker than for Bank Boss/CEO:Jobless/Min Wage in the UK.

"...but allowed the minister,..."

Ah the magic words - you are talking about a politician. Now where on earth did you ever get the idea that they do anything to improve the lot anybody before ensuring first that they themselves are well provided for - it's a club and the star prize is when you get elected or better still "appointed" to the big club in Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 09:31 AM

yes very true, why are the west not invading ireland, after all the government reduced the dole by 8 euros a week, but allowed the minister, who wasted 53 million on useless electronic voting machines, martin cullen to get a fat pension.
Martin Cullen will receive a severance payment of nearly €80,000 (per today's Irish Independent):

PLUS a salary of nearly €200,000 for the remainder of 2010, and nearly 100K for 2011;

PLUS a combined TD and Minister pension of €106,000 FOR LIFE! (per Vincent Brown last night)

MC has only been a TD since 1987.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:04 AM

Every country has its dissidents Teribus.....do you really subscribe to the idea of powerful countries enforcing regime change, just because it is in their interests to do so?

The UN charter specifically forbids forced regime change.....for very good reasons.

Where did you get your hands on Said Gadaffi's payslip?
and how do you contrast the salaries and bonuses of the financial bosses with the amount that the unemployed or those on the minimum wage are expected to live on?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 07:02 PM

"he was good enough for the weSt for 40 years"

Where on earth did this fiction come from? Libya was regarded as a pariah state for most of those forty years?

Diference between the kleptocracy of Gaddafi and Mugabe and the damage done to each country? Gaddafi had oil Mugabe did not, so the latter in his plundering of his nations riches killed off the goose that laid the golden eggs in Zimbabwe and turned the country into the nightmare it now is. Gaddafi just dumbed the populace down and isolated them from the rest of the world, while he plundered the oil revenues and enforced his "Investment Fund" his son was on, oh how much was his yearly allowance again? £170,000,000 - nice pay if you can get it - what was the average yearly wage of any libyan worker?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:25 PM

Economy

The Economy of Libya is centrally planned and follows Gadaffi's Socialist ideals. It depends primarily upon revenues from the petroleum sector, which contributes practically all export earnings and over half of GDP. These oil revenues and a small population have given Libya the highest nominal per capita GDP in Africa.[29] Since 2000, Libya has recorded favourable growth rates with an estimated 10.6% growth of GDP in 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:47 PM

I can't see much indication that anyone taking sides on this has much regard for the opinion of the people of Libya, which do not seem at all clear.

Libya is made up of three regions which have significant differences, the former Tripolitania, with Tripoli as its capital and the former Cyrenaica, with Benghazi as its capital, and the former Fezzan, in the southern desert. Clearly there is support for the rebellion in Benghazi and also in Misrata, but whether there is support in the rest of the country seems unclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:20 PM

Oh, and 600....yay!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:19 PM

It seems to me that those of you who believe that Libya is better off under the leadership of Gaddafi have very little regard for the opinion of the people of Libya.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM

yes i reckon its possible,he could still be there at the end of june. anyway he was good enough for the weSt for 40 years, and in my opinion has done less damage to libya than mugabe has done to zimbabwe.
I would say libya has improved under his regime, bet most libyans are better off than they were under king idris,
The west should not have interfered., still the west has made a lot of money in supplying arms and will undoubtedly get cheaper oil when gaddafi is eventually removed, if he is removed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM

"Regime Change", is a lot more dangerous than Col Gadaffi.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 11:45 AM

McGrath-

All the talk about "no deadline" is just part of the NATO strategy for encouraging Gadhafi and his family to depart. Yes, "regime change" is also the unwritten agenda.

I'm willing to bet that Gadhafi leaves before the end of this month. Any takers?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 09:25 AM

The point is, regardless of all that, there seem to be no indications of an imminent collapse of the regime. On the contrary, plenty of comments by the British government sources about there being no deadline on military involvement, as long as it takes etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 10:56 AM

Here's an update on a press conference held by the latest group of high ranking officers to defect from Gadhafi's army (Al Jazeera):

More than 100 military officials and soldiers have defected from Libya's armed forces in recent days, according to a group of eight military officers, as pressure mounts on leader Muammar Gaddafi to step down.

The high-ranking Libyan army officers appeared at a press conference in Italy on Monday, where they announced that they were part of a group of as many as 120 military officials and soldiers who defected from Gaddafi's side in recent days.

The hastily called news conference was organised by the Italian government for the the eight officers - five generals, two colonels and a major.

"What is happening to our people has frightened us," said one officer, who identified himself as General Oun Ali Oun.

"There is a lot of killing, genocide ... violence against women. No wise, rational person with the minimum of dignity can do what we saw with our eyes and what he asked us to do."

Of course, what they say may all be lies or maybe they were Hollywood actors. I'd like to think that the Gadhafi regime is coming apart at the seams as NATO pressure increases on Gadhafi to depart for Venezuela.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 05:10 PM

I can't see that "a breather to rebuild their communication systems" would be particularly helpful to the troops of the Tripoli regime. An effective embargo on reinforcement of weapons, would still be maintained, and a freeze on outside financial assets.

If there are people in the regime who would like to dispense with Gaddafi, which seems highly likely, that could well be easier to achieve during a ceasefire than while the bombs are falling.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 04:40 PM

While McGrath is correct in theory, the reality is that there's nothing to negotiate except how immediately and how far G will go into exile or (don't count on it) to prison to await trial.

G can end the bloodshed right now by making a simple ego-deflating announcement and joining one of his dictator pals in a place other than Libya, to live in luxury - until someone comes for him as they did Bin Laden or Mlosevic (your choice).

G's history of false ceasefires has already been mentioned. A real one would only give his military a breather to rebuild their communication systems while the pointless negotiating continues. (If he isn't leaving now, he won't leave when the heat is off.) It would also suggest to Gaddafi wanna-bes not that NATO is humane but that NATO is losing and indecisive. It could also boost G's popularity at home as the man that NATO couldn't break.

But perhaps this is all fantasy. Perhaps G is really a good guy who wants the best for his people, and he'd never in a million years take advantage. Perhaps this is all just a silly misunderstanding.

General ceasefires don't work until one side is actually ready to quit. That kind is called an "armistice."

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 03:11 PM

A ceasefire during negotiations would mean that so long as negotiations continued there would be a ceasefire, and no civilians were being killed. Those were the key demands in Resolution 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:37 PM

A ceasefire for the purpose of negotiation, in this case, would be useless as Gaddafi says he is not leaving and the rebels say his and his family's departure are prerequisites for negotiation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:19 PM

Ceasefires have to be implemented by both sides to be effective.

There appears to have been no attempt to hold Gaddafi to a ceasefire by offering to reciprocate. Such on offer would not have reduced the ability of Nato to carry out military attacks, unless Gaddafi actually did comply.

There is nothing cherry picking about pointing out that the demand for a ceasefire is the first and most basic of the things being called for in Resolution 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 12:47 PM

Cherry picking at UN Security Council Resolution 1973 will not help your case Kevin. Establishing and maintaining the No-Fly Zone was only one of the measures 1973 sanctioned, the main focus and it's over-riding concern was the protection of civilians in Libya.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I distinctly remember that within hours of 1973 being passed one of Gaddafi's spokesmen appeared on Television broadcasting that a ceasefire was going to be put into effect immediately - That never happened of course Gaddafi and his mercenaries continued to slaughter Libyan civilians without even the briefest of pauses to let the twat finish making his speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 07:03 AM

Saying "you cannot force a civil war" is a bit like saying "you cannot trigger an avalanche".

"A population who are happy with their lot" would be an excellent thing to have in any country. But I'd suggest sadly there are relatively few countries where there is not a significant part of the population at any time that is not that happy with its lot.
...........................

Resolution 1973 was an emergency response to fears of an imminent massacre of civilians. Whether such a massacre was in fact imminent is something about which there will no doubt be disputes by historians in the future, but there is a reasonable case for arguing that it was, and that an immediate no fly zone with military action to halt the advance of government troops into Benghazi was required.

But that is a separate matter from continuing air raids to bring about regime change in Tripoli, and refusing to make any efforts to implement the UN demand for "an immediate ceasefire" which was also contained in Resolution 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 03:11 AM

1. "Looks like we've just started another civil war chaps."

For a start Akenaton you cannot force a civil war on a population who are happy with their lot, you cannot force a civil war on a population that do not want one.

I would venture that if anyone instigated this "civil war" that you refer to it was Colonel Muammar Gaddafi when he started killing civilian protesters back in February and March this year.

"Another civil war"?? What other ones have "we" started??

2: "How can that be protecting civilians?"

How can what be protecting civilians?

- A civil war? You have the choice you either stand there on the street or sit in your home and let Gaddafi's troops kill you and your family, or you take up arms and fight back. The former course of action guarantees loss of life and family, the latter at least gives you a chance at survival.

- Maintaining a "No-Fly Zone"? Prevents attacks by the Gaddafi side on civilian populations and population centres, that certainly saves civilian lives.

- Destroying formations massed to attack civilian centres of population? Definitely saves civilian lives? How many civilians are currently being shelled and killed in Misrata today Akenaton?

- Destroying Gadafi's means to command and control his remaining armed forces and mercenaries? Makes it difficult for him to wage war on his civilian population.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 11:18 PM

Lighter has it right on the suggestion of a Gandhi-like approach for the rebels.   Hitler offered the unsolicited advice to British officials in India that they should just shoot Gandhi and a few hundred others.    Gadhafi won't even need the advice--that approach just comes natural to him. After all, what else can you do about "rats" and traitors?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 06:43 PM

Looks like we've just started another civil war chaps.

How can that be protecting civilians?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 05:16 PM

There are more ways than one to skin a cat.

Continued bombing, while totally ignoring the requirement in Resolution for "an immediate ceasefire", is not the best way.