Should the UN try to slow the process of war?
Paveway bombs weighing 2,000lbs to be loaded onto RAF jets for possible strikes on Gaddafi command centres
S.H.
'slow the process of war'? 'intervention turning into war'? - the un resolution states that intervention is to protect the civilians of Libya, you cant do that without getting rid of the Ghaddaffi dictatorship. As soon as we engaged it was war against the regime - you cant go and slap him on the wrist and say 'dont do it again you naughty boy'
A.J.B.W.
wait a minute S.H.. The UN resolution says NOTHING about regime change. Which would be illegal anyway.
A.J.B.W.
Here you go S.H., Here is resolution 1973 in relation to the NFZ
"No Fly Zone
6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;
7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to
flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the
delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and
related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which
are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorisation conferred in
paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be
coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;
8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and
the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through
regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce
compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and
requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to
coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to
implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for
implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,
9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional
organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;
10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each
other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement S/RES/1973 (2011)
4 11-26839
paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and
approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;
11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the SecretaryGeneral and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of
measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above,
including to supply a concept of operations;
12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any
actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred
by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month
thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any
violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;"
Please show me where it says that regime change is the objective?
J.R.
Sorry but regime change was always on the agenda, even before Res: 1973. Furthermore, the rebels were being armed before the NFZ with the US's full knowledge. All Res: 1973 does is legitamise NATO's interference in a civil war.
S.F.
I support the intervention, but yes let's not be hypocrits, the only way out is to make sure Gaddaffi leaves, isn't it?
M.R.
Alan....oh...you are such a pedant!......If the West want to shoot Gadaffi........surely, thats up to them.......not pansy organisations like the UN......pffffff
S.F.
lol mark
A.J.B.W.
I was reading a book last night..(it had pictures on it..and written in crayon).
The Author argues that the present situation where we have unpopular legal war with civilian casualties is a worse policy than the cold war policy of illegal killings of despots.
Now I am not advocating the writers opinion, but if the real motivation is regime change, couldn't the West have helped Gaddaffi have an unfortunate "accident" rather than an unpopular war that has cost countless innocent lifes?
M-H.G.
I can't help wondering why you are supporting the intervention So Fi, it seems to go against the grain of what you generally support, is it because the French are heavily involved this time??
J.R.
A.J.B.W.
I think the relatives of the 2 women and 12 children killed by a NATO airstrike in Afghanistan last night may well agree with him...
S.F.
I was supporting the intervention in Iraq one as well, just because I hate fascists and dictators, again I recommend 'what's left' from Nick Cohen on the subject.
A.J.B.W.
So Fi, would you have supported the assassination of Gadaffi?
I think..ultimately, I would have. It would have caused much less bloodshed in the long wrong.
I.A.
The spotlight is off Libya. The public have lost interest. The cat's away. It's time for the mice to start dropping bunker busters! Which are actually quite expensive. And probably made by an American weapons manufacturing corporation. Like the one that ran our Census. We may be in the middle of austerity measures but - like banks - we always have money for weapons manufacturing corporations.
M-H.G.
Long wrong Alan??
M-H.G.
I can hardly believe what I am reading, it is ok for the West to conduct assassinations of leaders they don't like, to kill innocent people in doing so. I can see that all of you have your children safe in bed tonight without the danger of a "friendly" bomb dropping on them!!! Shame on you warmongers.
M.C.
MArie, do you also have an opinion on how the passengers and their families thought when they boarded an airplane one cold night many years ago. Gadaffi is a sponsor of international terrorism, the sooner he is killed the better for all, including me in not having to read all this pacifist nonsence
A.J.B.W.
Marie, Sorry Im not explaining myself well. Long night.
Firstly, I do not think that our forces should be involved in Libya. I believe that we were far to quick to dismiss diplomacy.
This decision of "intervention" would be a noble idea if it is for humanitarians reasons. But it seems to me that humanitarian interest are being overtaken by the thought of regime change. We are, in my opinion, taking sides in a civil war.
Now the book I was reading was saying that illegal killing, though immoral, was a better scenario that a long unpopular war where 0000s of innocent civilian die.
I don't advocate that opinion but I was wondering if Gaddafi had been assassinated, would there have been less bloodshed in Libya?
All I know is that JAw,Jaw is better than War,War.
M-H.G.
So Mick it is ok to go and kill innocent civilians? That makes us better than Gadaffi? I am not convinced that Gadaffi was behind Lockerbie and Iam not the only one. And it has taken over 20 years to wake up and smell the coffee? Do us a favour Mick and go to bed!
A.J.B.W.
You know Mick, right at the beginning I thought that we were being deliberately nice<if you know what I mean>.
We should have had been far more decisive.
Either stay out of it all together.
Or get rid of Gadaffi.
The NFZ was always going to be a recipe for disaster. It is impossible to insert that military pressure from the air alone. Air campaign causes extensive collateral damage( I HATE that phase). It was always going to blow back in our face.
I would say that there is an argument that the assassination of Gaddafi would have stopped a lot of the deaths that have happened since our intervention.
M.C.
You are not convinced he was behind Lockerbie ???, what planet are you from woman !!!!!!!
M.C.
I just hope that one day your daughter or grandchild are not caught up in one of Gadaffi’s sponsored awaydays
M-H.G.
The Middle East is full of tyrants, why on earth do we single out some and not others? Collateral damage means innocent people are killed, it is atrocious. I don't see any difference between a child killed by a "terrorist" action and one killed by "legal" bombing. I dare to challenge any of you who think there is a difference to go and talk to the parents.
A.J.B.W.
I don't think anyone is saying different Marie.
M-H.G.
I hope Mick that my daughter and grandson are never caught in any act of violence be it Gadaffi sponsored or American indulgence.
M-H.G.
You could also think of ways to remove the causes of "terrorism". And never forget that someone's terrorist is someone's else hero, always has been.
M-H.G.
Unfortunately Alan, I think there is outrage when Westerners are killed but a kind of detachement when it happens to the rest of the world.
A.J.B.W.
Some people think it is a game of Cowboys and Indians. They have no reality of what is happening.
War is horrible. There are never any winners..only those who have lost more.
But to prevents mass bloodshed, could you condone and illegal killing? (Specifically in Libya).
In respect of terrorism, the only long term answer is diplomacy and self-determination without outside pressures.
I don't believe that ANY nation can defeat a terrorist organisation militarily without dialogue between both sides.
M.C.
Only you Marie would read into this that the killing of innocents is condoned, but you miss the point that terrorists don't think similarly. Ideally we need to find Gadaffi and his kind walking alone in the desert so we can shoot them on the spot, but unfortunately they hide behind innocents, but it still doesnt detract from the fact these people still need eradicating
A.J.B.W.
Mick, would you have preferred, rather than an humanitarian NFZ but a more decisive attack on Gadaffi Army and Gadaffi himself. Using quick reactioon Forces to neutralise Gaddaffis HQ and support system, then quickly leaving Libya.
M.C.
In short Alan, yes
A.J.B.W.
I think that we took the "middle ground" and ended up causing more problems.
M.C.
The Bin Laden thing shows its possible, but of course each mission is different. I would not support similar in the other Arab uprisings though, except Iran if that ever kicks off. Gadaffi had to go years ago, the time is now right, simply kill him and get over it
M.R.
Mick......so you would not bat an eyelid if AlQueda took out Camboy?....Don't tell me....that's different.....As A.J.B.W.pointed out earlier there is no UN mandate for the aggression that is now proposed......the West are, once again, exceeding their authority, unless they go back to the UN......imo
M.R.
Marie.....you have been a voice of sanity.........we should never have got involved in Libya.......it is a civil war in a country we do not "understand".......oh, but it does have oil........durrrrr
J.R.
Mick. The only difference between terrorists like the alleged Bin Laden, or groups like Hamas, and state terrorist states like Britain, the US, and Israel, is the size of their arms budget! They have AK-47's and we have Apache attack helicopters. They have RPG's and we have Tomahawk cruise missiles. Depending on where one stands one could argue that the UN Security Council is the greatest terrorist organisation in the world...
Why don't you stop trying to guilt trip people by bringing up the Lockerbie bombing when the alleged mission in Libya is protecting civilians, unless of course, you agree that the mission actually has nothing to do with protecting civilians and is really about revenge, regime change, and control over the future of Libyan oil.
How many more people have to die as collateral damage to western objectives? Your approval of action against Iran just highlights your ignorance because the Islamist regime in Iran is a product of the West's interference and it's lust for oil. Oddly enough BP are involved in both!
M-H.G.
Where are the headquarters of the UN situated?
A.W.
Can any of the so called pacifists offer a long term strategy for the Libyans who want stability that does not involve regime change?
M-H.G.
What has it got to do with us Ashley, are we the policemen of the world? Have we got the moral high ground?
I.A.
1) Help Libyans You may accidentally bomb a few but you can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs.
2) Get rid of an international trouble causer.
3) Change the regime of an oil producing country to one which owes a debt of gratitude to the west.
4) Drop bombs and make money for weapons manufacturing corporations.
Win, win, win, win. Simples.
A.J.B.W.
1) Help Libyans You may accidentally bomb a few but you can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs.
Those "eggs" are people sons, daughters, father and mothers. But we are making an omelette so who cares who dies...
2) Get rid of an international trouble causer.
Cameron or Sarkozy.well I'd rather if we done it through the ballot...oh you mean Gaddaffi! Nothin like a wee bit of international murder to sooth 'em damn locals.
4) Drop bombs and make money for weapons manufacturing corporations.
You really are a twisted individual.
Simples
R.F.
Ian I really hope you are being intentionally provokative with those comments. War is not a game. Peoples lives are involved
M-H.G.
I have a feeling that Ian is being sarcastic, at least I hope so!
A.J.B.W.
Ashley,
Can any of the so called pacifists offer a long term strategy for the Libyans who want stability that does not involve regime change?
Well the way I see it we had two initial choices. Stay out of it but use diplomatic action or two "use the military stick"
Since we decided to use the stick, I would have preferred a direct hit against Gadaffi and his support network. Using both SF, RRF, and the RAF.This should have been a short operation. Once Gadaffi is not in a position to cause more deaths, get ALL the forces out.
But we choice the middle ground of using a NFZ for humanitarian reasons. As soon as "humanitarian" reason was said, it put our forces as a disadvantage as there is no significant objective. And it seemed that we are takins sides in a civil war, killing civilians from both sides.
Using air force to control the battle on the ground wil,l historically, cause more civilian casualties.
Our Government should have been honest on WHY we were there. Then from there, an operation could have been started that protected the civilian rather than killing them.
My opinion is that we should have stayed out of it.
M-H.G.
We are there because of the oil reserve stop pretending otherwise.
I.A.
"War is not a game. Peoples lives are involved"
It's not a game. It's business. Lives are only an issue if they care. I urge you to draw your own conclusions.
A.W.
Spend £3m a day to profit from oil. Clever.
A.J.B.W.
Marie,
I don't even think it is for oil. I believe that this was Political. Certain aspect of western Governments have been waiting a long time time to get "revenge" on Gaddaffi. This was their opportunity and they grasped it.
Ian, you are trying too hard to be controversial.
M-H.G.
Alan, the oil plays a major part. But you are right, Sarkosy for instance has problems at home and is up for re-election next year or not, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the West had not instigated this " Arab Spring".
M-H.G.
Ashley, the long term implication in obtaining cheap(ish) oil is worth it. We are big guzzlers!
M-H.G.
Oh and Libya has liquid gas as well!
I.A.
"Ian, you are trying too hard to be controversial."
I'd prefer if you didn't tell me what I am and am not trying to be. Thanks :-). I believe we are really in Libya for the reasons I gave. A government's good reasons for doing something are not necessarily what we would call good reasons. That's my view. Take it or leave it. But please don't patronize me.
A.W.
We already had cheap oil from the Gaddafis.
30 May 2011 at 10:40 · Like
I.A.
"We already had cheap oil from the Gaddafis"
So your reasoning is that because we were getting oil from Libya (I don't know how cheap it was) putting a fresh regime in place indebted to the west would not be a good thing?
Not picking a fight with you Ashley. Just want to get your reasoning straight in my head.
A.W.
Ian: I'm glad you asked the question rather than make the statement. I feel that any humanitarian mission in Libya was and is incompatible with leaving Gaddafi and his crime family in power. Any arguments I have made about oil simply do not interest me and were made to counteract any conspiratorial arguments against the liberation of Libya.
A.J.B.W.
A.W."I feel that any humanitarian mission in Libya was and is incompatible with leaving Gaddafi and his crime family in power. "
Can I ask you a question? Would you have preferred, rather than an humanitarian NFZ but a more decisive attack on Gadaffi Army and Gadaffi himself. Using quick reactioon Forces to neutralise Gaddaffis HQ and support system, then quickly leaving Libya.
I agree with you that this being a "humanitarian" mission is more a hinderance rather than a help.
A.W.
The immediate priorities should be to protect Libyan citizens who are under fire on the front line. But ultimately I think rather than a gradual increase of pressure they should've gone in with the bunker busters months ago.
J.R.
Yes, of course, this is about controlling Libyan but it's a lot more than that, it's about the democratisation of the world, globlisation, and one world governance. People are only looking at the short term view of so say 'protecting civilians', which of course, unless you are extremely naive, means removing Gaddafi.
The long term view is quite different and as Ian suggests involves having an oil rich nation with a new democratic govt indebted to the West. No doubt, as seen at the G8 meeting last week in respect of Egypt and Tunisia, aid money will be given to help the Libyans back onto their feet. Obama will be saying "we support democracy but don't dictate outcomes" or some self righteous siht like that, and the IMF and the corporate world move in to ensure they all get a slice of the cake.
Through this the Libyan people will be grateful and will embrace their new democracy with vigor. They will believe in freedom and talk of their new found rights. With western assistance their economy will grow as they join the 'market' and a thriving new democracy has been realised. Then one day they will wake up and realise that it was all a dream, and find that the aid money came with strings attached, they are indebted to banks and struggling to keep pace with the interest payments, their economy flatlines before going into recession, and then the IMF steps in to bail them out.
Bye bye democracy, it was fun while it lasted...
