Do we defend the Libyan citizens being killed and brutalised by the rebels? I have no idea whether they are being paid or persuaded by Gaddafi but, just as those paid or persuaded by protesters, they are Libyan citizens and need protecting. Will we - as UN forces - bomb rebel vehicles advancing to kill them too? Or are we just on the one side (regime change)?

The assumption is that there are NO Libyans who want Gaddafi, that all support the freedom fighters (but are too afraid to do so).

The question of a divided Libya doesn't come into the equation either ... the UN resolution speaks of support (for the rebels) until there is a United Libya (so until Gaddafi goes).

ie Regime Change (and years overdue).

Well if there are NO Libyans that want Gaddafi, then it's an incredible situation which should soon solve itself. What a relief to find something in life that is so clear and definite.

JK2006 wrote:
Well if there are NO Libyans that want Gaddafi, then it's an incredible situation which should soon solve itself.

Which is why everyone (myself included) believes this will last a very short time indeed.

Shall we review at the weekend - and see if Gaddafi is still there ?

No ITK because even if he's gone it was wrong wrong wrong for us to invade a country in order to eject a regime we don't like when many Libyans DO like him and want him to remain. This is not democratic - it's a dictatorship by the strongest (us) over others. It is wrong.

Another obvious question is: why Libya and not Zimbabwe? Mugabe has run rough-shod over his own people, over the UN and anyone else he disagrees with - why no action against them?
Answer - because, like all "invasions" of this kind in recent memory it is led by the CIA (who this time, in an attempt to mask the obvious, set up insurgences in neighbouring countries first) as the USA basically thinks it can (and generally has been) setting, bringing down & arming foreign regimes as they see fit. Libya, like Iraq etc, has oil. If Zimbabwe had the natural resources left of Botswana or South Africa we would have seen action there - but it hasn't.

Chris Retro wrote:
Another obvious question is: why Libya and not Zimbabwe? Mugabe has run rough-shod over his own people, over the UN and anyone else he disagrees with - why no action against them?
Answer - because, like all "invasions" of this kind in recent memory it is led by the CIA (who this time, in an attempt to mask the obvious, set up insurgences in neighbouring countries first) as the USA basically thinks it can (and generally has been) setting, bringing down & arming foreign regimes as they see fit. Libya, like Iraq etc, has oil. If Zimbabwe had the natural resources left of Botswana or South Africa we would have seen action there - but it hasn't.

There are strong rumours that the Yanks want Gaddafi to go to Zimbabwe.

One bomb instead of using two ?

JK2006 wrote:
No ITK because even if he's gone it was wrong wrong wrong for us to invade a country in order to eject a regime we don't like when many Libyans DO like him and want him to remain. This is not democratic - it's a dictatorship by the strongest (us) over others. It is wrong.

These are the nice, kind innocent Libyans that you want to protect, JK -

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Vid...Evidence_It_Happened

Chris Retro wrote:
Another obvious question is: why Libya and not Zimbabwe? Mugabe has run rough-shod over his own people, over the UN and anyone else he disagrees with - why no action against them?
Answer - because, like all "invasions" of this kind in recent memory it is led by the CIA (who this time, in an attempt to mask the obvious, set up insurgences in neighbouring countries first) as the USA basically thinks it can (and generally has been) setting, bringing down & arming foreign regimes as they see fit. Libya, like Iraq etc, has oil. If Zimbabwe had the natural resources left of Botswana or South Africa we would have seen action there - but it hasn't.

Don't agree Chris ... the USA has been rattled by all this (seeing their pet despots tumble one after the other).

===

Despite Mugabe's open support for Gaddafi right to the end, at the end of all this, the Libyan leader is either going to be dead or detained.

Gaddafi has been reported to be considering fleeing to Zimbabwe, but he has vowed that he will go down fighting. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she is flabbergasted and "speechless" about the possibility of Gaddafi fleeing to Zimbabwe. Clinton said last month in Geneva that "no option was off the table."
"I was almost rendered speechless by the idea of him and Mugabe together," Clinton said the goal is for an end to the violence, "and if the violence could be ended by his leaving ... that might be a good thing.” There are reports that the Zimbabwean army is helping Gaddafi in Libya. But Defence minister Emerson Mnangagwa has rejected the charges in Parliament.

Clinton insisted that Gaddafi must face the music for his massacre, with Washigton describing him as "delusional."

“His leaving and ending the killing of so many people who are trying to assert their rights, that might be a good, a good step, but of course we believe accountability has to be attained for what he has done,” she said. Mugabe says the Western countries have once again had their way in causing regime change. Gaddafi claims "all my people love me."

from - www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option...tories&Itemid=30
But the freedom fighters waging war against Gaddafi who have managed to get help from the coalition forces are taking over more and more cities close to Tripoli, a new government has been formed and recognized, UN and Western sanctions have been imposed, the International Criminal Court is probing human rights violations, and the noose is slowly tightening on Gaddafi's neck

Chris Retro wrote:
because, like all "invasions" of this kind in recent memory it is led by the CIA .

Wrong again, Chris ... the UN motion was introduced by Lebanon (the ONLY Arab Security Council member). Britain France and latterly (when they knew the Arab League were onside) the USA then supported it.

In The Know wrote:
Chris Retro wrote:
because, like all "invasions" of this kind in recent memory it is led by the CIA .

Wrong again, Chris ... the UN motion was introduced by Lebanon (the ONLY Arab Security Council member). Britain France and latterly (when they knew the Arab League were onside) the USA then supported it.

The CIA and British secret services are capabale of influencing UN policy.

What is happening in the ME looks more and more every day like manipulated events.

veritas wrote:
What is happening in the ME looks more and more every day like manipulated events.

No veritas - what is happened is that more and more people are realising that if other repressed states (Egypt / Tunisia etc) can achieve it ... then so can they !

Its exactly the same as the fallover domino-effect of Russian-satellite states (in Europe) in the 1980s.

"No fly zone" now seems to involve killing soldiers (and civilians but let's keep quiet about that) on the ground. Oh what a murky web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
What is happening in the ME looks more and more every day like manipulated events.

No veritas - what is happened is that more and more people are realising that if other repressed states (Egypt / Tunisia etc) can achieve it ... then so can they !

Its exactly the same as the fallover domino-effect of Russian-satellite states (in Europe) in the 1980s.

Mikael Gorbachov hastened the collapse of the USSR and I think it was deliberate and sensible.

Yes there is obvviously popualr grass roots uprisings but I do not believe that it is solely spontaneous..guarantee the Brits and Yanks have been meddling.

Yes and I do wonder - if the opposition in Libya can't even win the odd battle against Gaddafi without the help of the rest of the world, how will they be as rulers? I suspect they may find they also need "help" from us - i.e. most of our tax money. Or go for the alternative - extreme fundamentalist rich (and nasty) religious leaders. After all, it's worked wonderfully in Iran.

veritas wrote:
Yes there is obvviously popualr grass roots uprisings but I do not believe that it is solely spontaneous.

Yemen and Syria today, veritas ..... the dominos fall !

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
Yes there is obvviously popualr grass roots uprisings but I do not believe that it is solely spontaneous.

Yemen and Syria today, veritas ..... the dominos fall !

It's not the dominoes you need to to watch,it's the marbles you've lost
The lone voice of reason....or a friendless ignoramous?

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
Yes there is obvviously popualr grass roots uprisings but I do not believe that it is solely spontaneous.

Yemen and Syria today, veritas ..... the dominos fall !

Are you daft enough to think their replacements will be any better?

JK2006 wrote:
if the opposition in Libya can't even win the odd battle.

Ajdabiya falls ! The new government retakes strategic town -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869658

My mistake ITK; I foolishly assumed the rest of the world had a hand in this - still, if you're right, we can expect a magnificent replacement government from the rebels without having to back them in any financial way. Your wisdom and observations are frequently so deep.