Libya - Military Action

[Rob McCow]

I'm really not sure what to make of the situation in Libya. On the one hand, Colonel Gadaffi appears to be a ruthless dictator and psychopath who shouldn't be put in charge of a street-sweeping team, never mind a whole country. He's played the Western Governments for his own benefit for decades. It would be a great day if he were removed from power.

So, apparently we sold him weapons. Now we're blowing up his military forces, reducing his ability to make war.

US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney
France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships
UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines
Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available
Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel

It's taken a fair time to get this far. For the rebels, it's probably seemed like forever, but by UN standards this is Blitzkrieg.

Sanctions haven't even been tried. There's been no evidence of any diplomacy that I've seen.

I don't even understand the 'No-Fly' zone. Who's not being allowed to fly? When they first mentioned it I thought they'd ban all civilian aircraft! Now it seems they're blowing up anything in the air.

I can't see what our countries hope to achieve with these tactics. They seem to be giving indirect support to the rebels, but if they only take out Gadaffi's air power that's hardly going to make a difference, isn't it? He'll just round them up with tanks and troops instead.

It's an arse of a situation and I'm sure the Western knee-jerk reaction of chucking in a few long-range missiles isn't going to be terribly useful.

[SiHart]

I'm glad we can afford a war when we're constantly told the counrty is in such financial dire straits.

Si xx

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I have to admit the idea of military action makes me feel queasy. But then again the idea that when Gaddafi is announcing a "ceasefire" whilst continuing to bomb civilians is just vile and vulgar. Of course he wants to play for time whilst continuing to kill his own people.

If we were to just wait for UN sanctions the "problem would go away" in that he'd have killed enough people for there to be no more rebels left.

[Rob McCow]

They've been waiting for the Gadaffi problem to go away for decades.

[Larry]

I'm glad we can afford a war when we're constantly told the counrty is in such financial dire straits.

Si xx

it's not so much the financial situation the country is in that bothers me it's the fact that Cameron, has with the one hand comitted our already over streatched forces to fighting another war while while making huge cuts to the armed forces with the other. It's crazy that the R.A.F has had to fly from bases in the UK a round trip of 3000 miles because the government axed one of the navy's air craft carriers and the other one we have has no planes because all the Harrier fighter jets that opperate from the carriers were also axed.

[Si Hunt]

We're actually bombing Gedaffi himself now:

Allied airstrikes have pounded Libya for a second night, destroying a building near the private residence of Colonel Gaddafi who is said to be "a legitimate target".

A cruise missile flattened what one coalition official described as the Libyan leader's "command and control capability", while Libyan authorities said it was an administrative building.

This feels like madness! Arn't our leaders employed to act on our behalf? Yet every time we turn around they've gone ahead and declared war on some country to liberate it. We can scarcely afford to interfere in the affairs of other countries by waging expensive wars everywhere can we?

Si.

[Junkyard]

This is the first chance the Libyan people have had to live under something other than a dictatorship for more than 40 years. They can’t do it for themselves, Gaddafi has all the military advantages in aircraft, artillery and tanks. So someone has to help them. There are only three nations in the world with the resources to do this.
The Chinese aren’t interested in helping anyone set up a democratic government and they are Gaddafi’s arms supplier anyway.
Ditto the Russians.
That leaves the USA and its allies (including us). And maybe some of the other Arab nations (Egypt would be ideal, but they’re still trying to sort out their own mess). So either we sit back and let Gaddafi wipe out half his nation or we act. Sanctions take too long. Gaddafi would ignore diplomacy. That leaves military action. The UN resolution allows any military action short of putting foreign troops on Libyan territory. They can attack Gaddafi’s air force, ground troops, supply convoys (vital for him to keep fighting) and communications. Also blockade and stop any planes or ships heading for Libya with anything other than food or medicines.
It’s going to be messy, confusing and horrific in places. But it might just work.

[Rob McCow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955

Slightly bizarrely, the BBC have shown the image of Gadaffi with his face covered in blood. Although I suppose it wouldn't take much to find it elsewhere on the internet, it surprises me when news agencies show these kinds of images.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

That's not a nice picture. I hope it's not on the Evening Standard later.
I just hope that the situation doesn't deteriorate. It's difficult to know how the new regime will act now they have Gaddafi. I can't imagine the whole country are suddenly going to fall into line without any difficulties.

[Stephen Morgan]

It's all over bar the shouting, Gadaffi's dead, it's all over the news pages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

[Lissa]

The barber's round the corner from our house is run by Libyans so Sidey McSidekick has just decided to go for a celebratory haircut.

[SiHart]

Is it just me who finds the pcitures of his blood splattered face plastered all over the front pages of the papers this morning a bit sick? It's like they're all revelling in his death.

[Awesome Wells]

Is it just me who finds the pcitures of his blood splattered face plastered all over the front pages of the papers this morning a bit sick? It's like they're all revelling in his death.

It's not just you, Si. The images are disgusting and barbaric - and festooning them over front pages and website homepages is grim and pointless. It's either they (and it's every paper except the FT, not just the tabloids) are saying "We know you think we print lies so here's some photographic evidence", "We know you like death porn so here's some snuffy goodness for you", or "We think it's in the national interest to show a dictator's bloodied corpse on our front pages". Ironically - and horribly - it'll be the latter excuse trotted out, even though it's hardly in the national interest to force gory images on anyone (including kids) glancing at the newspaper shelf in WHSmith.

[Rob McCow]

Whatever it is, they've foisted this horrific image onto everyone.

Maybe I should complain.

[Larry]

It's all over bar the shouting, Gadaffi's dead, it's all over the news pages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

I think it's far from over - these people have never known what it's like to live in a democracy, there's inevitably going to be more fighting as the different factions try and form a government. The real worry for the West, is if an extreamist Islamic group take power.

[Stuart Wallis]

It's not just you, Si. The images are disgusting and barbaric - and festooning them over front pages and website homepages is grim and pointless. It's either they (and it's every paper except the FT, not just the tabloids) are saying "We know you think we print lies so here's some photographic evidence", "We know you like death porn so here's some snuffy goodness for you", or "We think it's in the national interest to show a dictator's bloodied corpse on our front pages". Ironically - and horribly - it'll be the latter excuse trotted out, even though it's hardly in the national interest to force gory images on anyone (including kids) glancing at the newspaper shelf in WHSmith.

And this on top of the photo of Michael Jackson's corpse in the gutter press the other week. Now Michael deserved some dignity in death, and if Gadaffi was really that bad, well shot of him, if you'll pardon the pun. Either way, Dave - I think the word you're looking for is necrophilia, and who do you know is into that sort of thing? I had nightmares when Sid Vicious died, coming so soon as it did after the photos of Elvis in his coffin were published, and when Death Of A Princess was broadcast. I was speaking to a friend today, who was as shocked as I was to see all these gory pictures on the 6 O'Clock News. Even the BBC has dropped its Reithian standards, I'm afraid.