UN resolution 1973

If the Libyan rebels take Sirte then Gadaffi calls a cease fire (and means it) and holes up in Tripoli, he can claim that any further action by the Alliance/NATO would be in violation of 1973 as he is no longer threatening civilians.

What happens next? What is the endgame? I do not believe that the "Rebels" are strong enough to take Tripoli on their own?

Re: UN resolution 1973

The rebels now think that we're on their side, and who can blame them, but they are a disorganised rabble who have no chance of taking Tripoli without allied help. Gaddafi has a mass of faithful followers around him, all bought and paid for, and although he is undoubtetly raving bonkers he hasn't been in power for forty years because he's stupid.

This will turn into another Afghanistan for the allies, because they rushed into another conflict with no real strategic aim and no exit plan. Yet more years of blood, sweat, tears and possible bankrupcy for Britain.

It's an absolute debacle and I despair of a parliament which hardly questioned the government but just rubber stamped the go ahead. Disgraceful.

Re: UN resolution 1973

Totally agree with you guys it is just to scary.

Would NATO be as interested if the rebels had started in the west of Libya and not the East with its oil fields.

I hate killing and I hate the way oil is causing so much pain, this may get worse as oil reserves drop.

Re: UN resolution 1973

The only reason we ARE supporting the Libyan rebels is BECAUSE we want access to Libyan oil, once Gadaffi has been deposed.

Re: UN resolution 1973

The sooner we stop interfering in other country's affairs the better but OIL is like a magnet and draws the worst out of people.

Re: UN resolution 1973

I too had grave doubts as to whether we should have got involved at all.
After the conference yesterday I still have the impression that no one seems to have much idea as to how to play out the endgame and bring this to a swift conclusion. I really do fear mission creep and a long drawn out involvement as per Iraq.

Whilst I agree in principle that we should help oppressed peoples for humanitarian reasons, where do we draw the line between stopping innocents being slaughtered and actively getting involved in the struggle between Government and Rebels?

In my view, if we arm them we are taking sides and we should not take sides.

Re: UN resolution 1973

"In my view, if we arm them we are taking sides and we should not take sides".

In which case GOG matey, we sided with Gaddafi some years ago, since 'we' supplied him with the arms and equipment he is now employing against the 'Rebels'. Good 'ere innit???

Re: UN resolution 1973

Was'nt it the so called working mans political party, ie, Nu-Labour who chose to supply Gadaffi with arms in the after they were elected (under false promises) to government!!

We need to concentrate on getting our own country back on the straight and narrow instead of trying to influence the world that we are still a ' World Power '.

Re: UN resolution 1973

Joe old bean, I thought that was a grave error at the time and I have not changed that view.
I did not approve of releasing Al-Megrahi at the time either. The foreign policy of the late unlamented NuLab government was a disaster, as AB has pointed out. It was not so much a policy as riding on bandwaggons.

Re: UN resolution 1973

Should we be intervening in Libya?I'm not sure, on the one hand there is the humanitarian issue, no-one can condone genocide in any form, on the other hand can we cope after the ravages of the Strategic Defence Review?Is oil the major issue again,BP has a huge stake there.....