´óÏó´«Ã½

The international community have disgraced themselves standing by whilst innocent civillians are murdered.

They have shown how little the diplomacy works. They should be very careful before we all see through them enough to remove them from power too.

Such crises merely expose how utterly useless the EU Commission really is. The key people barroso President of the EU Commission, Van Rumple(?) President of EU and Baroness Ashton EU Foreign Affairs envoy have been conspicuous by their silence - it is Kosove and the Balkans crisis all over again.

At the very least the main EU countries could have organised air raids to strike at Libya's main Air Force bases. A no fly zone takes a lot longer to set up. Whether western politicians should have made encouraging noise to the rebels is questionable. To do so and then do nothing when the rebels are expectant of some sort of support is quite contemptible.

"Will it, by then, be too late to make any difference?"

Well, if we listened to the Today prog on R4, by all accounts it already is too late and chances are within the next 2 weeks, Gadaffi will have this one rolled up and quashed and then the retribution against the rebels will start.

Even if there was a no fly zone, it would take longer than a fortnight to put it in place and make it effective, so the rebel Libyans, I'm afraid are on their own. Sarkozy only said what he did for domestic consumption to try and head off the threat from Marine Le Pen. If France wants to unilaterally start and enforce a no fly zone over Libya, then come on Sarko, he should put his Rafales where his mouth is.

"For more than a decade the EU had an "association agreement" with Egypt which demanded that the government in Cairo should end its state of emergency. It was toothless and ineffective. Other countries in the EU's "neighbourhood" are Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia whose policies have remained similarly unaffected by EU declarations."

What? Even with the highest paid female politician in the world at the helm of their Foreign Service? You jest Nicholas, surely? Havent you heard Cathy Ashton's dynamic leadership on the subject? You know, the former CND Treasurer that Gordon the Great thought would be perfect for the job?

You havent? What's that? You would have, but she had to leg it back to Brussels Zuid to get the Eurostar before lunch?

Dang.....

"The prime minister will argue today that those countries that reform should get more cash and more access to European markets. He will be fighting France and the Mediterranean countries who tend to see their neighbours as the source of unwanted immigrants rather than trading partners."

And I'm sure Frau Merkel will be more than happy to get her cheque book out, yet again. Not.... And if the French and the Med countries dont want the immigrants, I'm sure the British will welcome them all with open arms. We have got previous where that is concerned.... Dear oh dear.

"It will be interesting to see how the newer members of the EU react. After all, the leaders of 10 of the 27 countries represented around the table grew up under Soviet era dictatorships. A further three - the Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese - also recall what it's like to live without freedom, democracy or the rule of law."

They'll probably be all for it, knowing that any immigration certainly wont be heading in their direction. It'll be heading down the E40 to Calais. And, it wont be their money that Call Me Dave will be looking to splurge either.

What a mess....

2#

But in order to put those raids in place mate, it would have taken at least a week after the decision was taken. Then, to add to that, you've got the political implication of having taken sides without knowing at that stage whether the uprising had any realistic chance of success, plus you've got the possibility of the Islamists siezing on it as another example of infidel interference, opening up a fourth front against Muslims, plus you're setting a precedent for any further uprisings which might not necessarily happen in places you want them to - Saudi for instance - very dangerous game, this regime change business. As we learned to our cost in Iraq & Afghan. Daves got a bit of a tricky balancing act, trying to make the right noises but not committing us to anything we cant deliver against.

Bush and Blair wouldnt have given a stuff, they'd have just piled straight in. With all the attendant consequences we saw last time. Would have quite possibly resulted in some serious oeufs sur la visage for Mr Blair after the Hug-A-Despot episode in the tent, but... I'm sure he'd have managed to spin his way out of that minor complication. Broon wouldnt have known what to do.

Perhaps if it weren't for political capital dissipated by Iraq and our moral authority sapped by embracing Gaddafi and selling him killing kit, we'd be able to do something.

Far cry from must not allow Gaddaffi to use military force against his own people. So what are you proposing Mr Cameron - words of mass disinclination? Do we only intervene when their is not a civil war going on like Iraq, Afghanistan? Should we encourage Tunisia and Egypt to intervene as the fall out is their problem and there are still many of their citizens in Libya and perhaps they would be backing the eventual winners?

re #1
I think you need to be realistic about where we are at present: the UN is somewhat short of instant integrity at the best of times, less so now. In addition, in the present financial, political and economic climate, the Americans would be rather less keen to appoint themselves 'world policeman' and barge in to sort it all out.

Their presence, if they did, might trigger a hostile response or responses from other groups or nations with an axe to grind. The US and the UK have commitments elsewhere. We no longer have the cash, the kit or the troops. And it might just be possible to set the whole Middle East alight from this north African taper ... . That doesn't bear thinking about.

The EU is a busted flush when it comes to international action and intervention. No chance of action there.

The people to act on Libya and do it quickly were the Organisation of African Unity. Do I recall correctly that it is their former 'President' that is at the centre of the Libyan crisis? And as military force, South Africa would have been the ones to do it. But they would have needed help from the bordering nations around Libya who may or may not be customers for Libyan oil and not too keen to upset their supplier.

So that leaves countries with reasonable access and an air force and/or aircraft carriers: the choice is massive. Argentina (no carrier) and Brazil (one) and you still have problems: getting 'basing' facilities near Libya plus the extra distance from S.America. No doubt Britain would assist with its Atlantic bases for the journey, but that would be about it.

So your finger pointing post, I think, rather overlooks the realities and the complexities of the situation.

5. At 2:15pm on 11 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:

Perhaps if it weren't for political capital dissipated by Iraq and our moral authority sapped by embracing Gaddafi and selling him killing kit, we'd be able to do something.

Why should past mistakes, often made by different people than the ones currently in charge, affect our decision now?

Hussein killed about 100,000 Kurds. The crime with Iraq was intervening too late. Here we are, making that same mistake again - except this time the frame is 2 weeks, whereas then it was a decade and a half.

Tricky one isn't it, Dave? It's regime-change again just because we don't like Gaddafi. Presumably that must be the reason, because the Saudis et al are just as bad, and you're not proposing regime-change there. Wisely, in my opinion. And some of the Libyan insurrection are calling for full-scale intervention, while others only want a NFZ. Which we can't actually provide. Yes - they're dans l'ordure all right unless the Yanks turn up with a CBG, chewing cigars, or Sarko displays an uncharacteristic interest in assisting.

My suggestion (going forward), is to cut back drastically on the rhetoric and hope something turns up.

This really is painful to watch, almost like a protracted car cash. It probably is best to accept that Britain is totally impotent in its ability to act in Libya. At the same time one wonders about Gaddafi's next move, would he for instance, use chemical weapons on his people if he still has any, as it seems he might. I also think it may not have been wise for Cameron to use so much rhetoric against Gaddafi until he knew the situation with our allies. He has rather left Gaddafi with very few options. Quietly starving Gaddafi of cash may have been much better, which is perhaps what Hague had in mind. Fight or there is nowhere to go, is basically the choice left for the Libyan leader. No wonder Hague looks a worried man, I would not like to have to make the decisions on this one.

If Iraq and Afghanistan had not happened, Britains options may have been much greater. As it is, I think Britain cannot intervene to any great extent. Nor really does Britain have the ability to do so in the current climate. This one will have to just play itself out, if other Countries are prepared to do nothing.

If Gaddafi does win, this will bring a mass of problems all of its own. Lets hope those British special forces, sent by Brown, to train Libyan troops did not do their usual good job.

This bloke is living in a fantasy world.

Snooty tells us all we're in a national emergency, we don't have any dosh. We can't afford a care home for our old folk or a prison for our criminals. We've scrapped our war planes, decomissioned our aircraft carriers and sacked our pilots.

Suddenly snooty is strutting round the world like some victorian era premier in the age of empire.

Sorry snooty old chum: talking of gun boat diplomacy when you've scrapped the gun boat and sacked the diplomats just makes you look silly.

Message to snooty: you are not a world leader. Leave it to the major powers.

Fubar 3

To be fair though, Cameron needs to be careful on the immigration one. France and the Mediterranean Countries do have a big problem with unwanted immigration. Also if Britain takes many more immigrants it will be the final nail in the coffin for the UK. Not only will the UK services and benefits systems not cope, but the housing stock is too small already, without there being more people to to house. There is already a problem with employment for the people Britain already has, without more. These are mostly unskilled workers as well. It is almost certain the UK has no chance of full employment ever again, even if the Country was at full growth capacity.

It could change the political outlook, if people see that Cameron is not keeping his promises on immigration.

Marnip @ 8

And many more (Iraqi civilians) than that were killed as a consequence of the Iraq war. But that's not really my point. Thing is, the Iraq invasion is generally accepted to have been a mistake. You may disagree - I know some do - but this is the consensus, I'd say. So when one major USA/UK military action in the middle east ends like that, and it's still fresh in the memory, it makes it less likely that appetite will be found for another. This is what I mean by 'political capital dissipated'. Then the 'authority' point: we've been actively seeking to bring Gaddafi in from the cold - doing business with him (including arms deals, I believe) - plus the Lockerbie thing, working for the release of the (unsafely?) convicted bomber - all of that. This in my opinion detracts from our moral mandate to intervene - except as part of a genuine international effort conducted on compelling humanitarian grounds, e.g. to prevent mass torture and genocide. This situation (for me) illustrates very well the benefits which could accrue from an ethical, as opposed to national interest, foreign policy. The 'cleaner' we are, the more effective we can be. Maybe. Then again, I only ever believe in UK military action overseas (unless it's clearly linked to self-defence) where it's part of an international humanitarian effort. Do I? Yes, I reckon. Not to achieve regime change, for example. Very difficult issues though, these. Won't be a great outcome - especially for many people in Libya - if Gaddafi prevails and then lets rip internally. But we'd be better placed, come what may, if we didn't have the Iraq legacy and we'd been less close to the Colonel over the years; this is my point.

Cameron has a dilemma. In some ways the International Community are crying out for some sort of leadership as hundreds of Libyan civilians are killed by Gadaffi but the overwhelming sense of the international community and people at home here is we cannot afford or be effective in another war abroad. Iraq and Afghanistan will weigh heavy on his mind and you really have to ask is it down to us to get involved bearing in mind how small the UK is and how no other country except for France is talking military action up?

The pictures of libyans being killed is truly horrifying but there are horrifying pictures from all over the world about bad dictators and oppressed people and we do not have the military capacity to do an awful lot about it. I personally think Gadaffi is mad and sanctions will not make him go. He is another Sadam Hussein and it will take firepower to oust him but what will that do for our reputation in the middle east which is already not good?

Can we assume that if oil is discovered in tibet that we, the EU and the US will fight to free it of the evil chinese yoke? Come on you monks, get prospecting....it's your only chance!

Also, can we afford yet another war? Why do we get involved?

O nly
I n
L ibya

re #13
And a good point, well made, it is.

Referring to my post last week - good to see that all our political leaders are still busy jawing and wringing hands. Thought they might be.

The Friday quiz. Why do taxpayers hand over their hard earned to fund the UN, the EU and NATO?

Answer: To provide jobs for politicos.

It's more fun than a rest home, lots of good dinners and foreign travel.

The only downside is when these so called leaders are faced with TV pictures of some autocrat using tanks and planes against his own people and the taxpayers who fund them(i.e. mugs like us) expect them to do something about it. Must quite take the edge off their glass (or 2 or 3 or 4) of Chateau Robert Pomerol.

Remember Iraq we were greeted by the populus then as liberaters etc and we all know what happened thereafter. It is utter naivety to believe that it wouldn't be much worse should we choose to involve ourselves in what is essentially a sovereign issue. The so called rebels only want our help now that it looks like they will almost certainly be defeated. It is then almost certain that Gaddafi will seek retribution of some description on those more vociferous rebel supporters. Also why Gaddafi instead of Mugabe or some of the other less savoury leaders. As I say remember Iraq.

Don't be distracted by Cameron's posturing or fighting words.

This is not Britain's responsibility.

This is not the EU's responsibilty.

There is an international body, which was created specifically to resolve situations like that in Libya. An that body is the UN.

If nothing else events of the last few days have clearly shown that the UN is not fit for purpose, and as long the permanent members of the security maintain their right to veto, it never will be.

The Chinese, for example are never to vote to allow any kind of intervention to prevent another nation doing to its own people what China itself did in Tianamen square.

The security council is broken and unable to function as it is supposed to, and until the whole issue of vetos is rexamined and restructured, it will never be fit for purpose.

Libya is the biggest stitch up since Kosovo. People call Iraq war illegal....check Kosovo out ;) Libya is not our business.....let them get on with it. I am usually a good pro war neocon supporter but not over this scandal. Where are the boring anti war brigade when you need them?

Iraq shouldn't be used as an excuse for inaction where other examples tell us military action can work. In this instance, you have a tyrant using military force against his own people. I'm not going to lie but this makes me emotive and I'd like to personally punch Gaddafi on the nose. Other people might not, but equally they might be the sorts of people to pass a crime in the street and put their heads down. But if an moral imperative doesn't sway people, then they should at least be pragmatic. There's no way it is in any of our interests to have an even more belligerent Gaddafi in power in an energy rich country on our own back yard. The International Community has to act and enforce a no fly zone now! Give the rebels a chance to fight Gaddafi on equal terms and his power will wilt.

Given the reluctance for EU military intervention maybe the solution is to supply "the rebels" with weapons so that they can at least defend themselves.At the moment the battle is somewhat one-sided in terms of miltary technology and maybe the EU needs to redress the balance.In that way the Libyans can decide their own regime change without any EU lives being lost.

His first international crisis and he`s found wanting.

He`s bungled the preliminaries and had to apologize.

Boldly announced an international strategy which he can`t deliver
without international support,not forthcoming.

Failed to consider the implications of taking sides against a despotic regime.Most in the region are,their structures still in place even when their leaders are deposed.

Do we turn our guns on the Sauds if they fire on their people? Or not give support if unrest threatens our economic interests?

After victories in Tunisia and Egypt,he thought the local elites would roll over.Backing the winning team, he reckoned on a fat slice of moral credit and trade.

Reactionaries with guns fight.We sell them stuff,we buy their oil.The Gulf States have endorsed a no-fly zone.Either they know it won`t be delivered,or bidding for our support if the locals turn nasty.

Mistakes have been made,he will survive because colleagues are even less able than him to think through the implications of his policy.It isn`t good,deficient in planning,incompetent in execution.

A government who can`t evacuate a boatload of civilians in good order is planning a root and branch reform of public services.

Oh yes,he`s got Sarkozy,the only serious rival to Ms.Le Pen.

If we start down the road of regime change again where will it all end - who else should we help depose?

It is deeply unsettling to think of the reprisals going on and if the scale of these escalates perhaps Nato/UN ought to fire a warning shot across Gadaffi's bows.

The rebels clearly did not want any intervention initially, if they ask for humanitarian help it should certainly be considered but full scale aggression against Gadaffi would be a huge and IMO mistaken step at this stage.

It is easy to be an armchair critic and demand action but there would be serious ramifications across Africa and the Middle East if Europe/America were to invade again without invitation.

The problem/difficulty the International Community is having are as follows:
Western govts are being extra cautious with regards to any military intervention because of the legacy and consequences of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which will live with us for a lobg time to come. The Arab League and the African Union are equally cautious not to give support to the notion as it may very well affect them next time given the political landscape of the region and countries and all Libyans including the anti-govt protesters do not want military intervention either. They have only just called for a 'no-fly'zone which is being looked into, albeit a bit too late as the massacre has already started with air bombardment from pro-Gaddafi forces. Who will lead the no-fly zone? The US is reluctant to use its resources and rightly so. The UK population feel the same even if the govt doesn't which is why it is down to the UN to engage other Arab nations and the African Union supported by the Western powers.

Re up2snuff

Fair points but the reality is these people are being murdered by a brutal regime armed by the west.

This talking is nonsense, the leadership of the world may as well return with their collective "pieces of paper" and leave Gadaffi to slaughter anyone he likes.

I think Cameron wants to act on this and is being held back. As someone who does not ordinarily approve of interventionalism, it makes me sick to think we can act for with the wrong motives but when it actually counts, we're all talk.

If we were all soooo worried about harsh regimes doing bad things to their people....North Korea should be top of the list. A fairly small rebel insurrection in Libya does not warrant all this nonsense. Total stitch up I tell you! And yes the post re the UN being useless...it certainly is not fit for purpose.....ask the rwandans.

Oh and Mr Cameron......send in the aircraft carriers! :D

I have just watched call -me-dave trying to act statesman like over Libya, so will we now be dealing with Zimbabwe Ivory Coast China Tibet and do we now back the protestors in Saudi Arabia, in fact are we about to arm the Saudis against the king, I am not really bothered about the Gadaffis however can any one explain this, when the protestors attack government forces then we all are supposed to cheer but when the Government forces fight back then we are supposed to be horrified.It then follows that if the gov forces in Libya are wrong then the next time there is a riot by protestors in London the forces of law should just back off and let the rioters do as they please entering government buildings and burning them to the ground, or is that only to be done by Jonny foreigner
The treatment by the security forces in Egypt for decades and during the protests must therefore have been ok as a lot of the arms supplied to those forces were supplied by the UK

@21 That indeed would be the case were they unarmed however every night you see them on the news fairly well armed. Old mad dog may indeed be rather unsavoury but no less so then the leaders of numerous countries with whom we do business. I repeat it's not our fight and maybe Cameron and Hague need to tone the rhetoric down a bit as it is looking increasingly likely they've backed the losing side.

All talk and no trousers. I agree it is painful to watch. While the Libyans aspire to self determination and are now being slaughtered by a madman for their courage we stand idly by ignoring their pleas for limited assistance to equalise the situation. And by doing so we are sending the very strong message that we in the 'sane' and democratic world could help but won't because we do not value their lives, at all.

Coats@24 wrote
If we start down the road of regime change again where will it all end - who else should we help depose?

>>

This strikes me as a very weak argument against action. You seem to be saying that because we can't help everyone in the world, we shouldn't help anyone. There may be practical reasons why intervention is a bad idea in this case, but I don't accept that by acting in Libya we will be morally obliged to act elsewhere, for spurious reasons of consistency. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Why can't David Cameron and William Hague see that they are themselves living in a fantasy world that will bury them both before Gaddafi goes. Here's why:

Of course most rational folk would like to see Gaddafi go, but continually asking him 'to leave' is an unfunny joke.

And the more the government says 'he must leave' the more egg they'll have on their faces when he doesn't.

And when the 'Colonel' finally suppresses the 'rebels' and declares himself victorious again, then what will Messrs Cameron and Hague say: 'Oh well we tried', or 'Never mind we were only joking'?

Seems like there's no way out for the British government at this stage, never mind Colonel Gaddafi.

21. At 4:13pm on 11 Mar 2011, studstudston

Bang on. You expressed my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

sagamix 13

You can have ethical foreign policy, but you would be a very poor Country it you did. Then who is it that decides what is ethical, for instance, we would not deal with China over human rights etc. Then it is deciding how far this should extend. For instance Russia deals with many pretty bad regimes, so should we trade with them, and so it goes on.

Over the years, under ethical foreign policy, we would not have had oil from the Middle East, because of the despotic regimes that were in power.

Britain produces very few things that they can sell in the World market, if we pick and choose who to sell them to, pretty soon we will not be able to pay the bills.

Mistakes will always be made in foreign policy, because you deal with the World as it is. No one can ever predict when this will change.

I don't believe you have thought this one through.

Why not try an "ethical foreign policy" and the rule of international law, since everything else seems likely to fail or even make things worse?

Let the International Criminal Court continue its investigations and issue warrants for the arrest of those with a case to answer. Any group calling itself the government of Libya involving these individuals should then be treated by other states as a criminal gang and not as a sovereign government. To do otherwise would be to undermine the authority of the ICC.

Gaddafi and his family and associates would have no right to act on behalf of Libya. Any company or individual having dealings with them, like for example paying them royalties for oil, would risk prosecution.

This might sound fanciful but apart from anything else it might put those leaders who play lip service to international law, and then conduct foreign policies ignoring it, on the spot.

23 bryhers

A government who can`t evacuate a boatload of civilians in good order is planning a root and branch reform of public services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From what I can see, they were evacuated in good order. Plenty of foreign nationals as well whose own governments were clearly no speedier.

Do you expect a government to have large resources on standby at all times so that no-one ever has to experience any hardship anywhere in the world?

There is a question of whether people who go and work in dangerous places, often for good pay and easy taxes should make more of an effort to have their own plans in place on what to do in the event of political instability. Those that are not resourceful enough to do this should perhaps go and work somewhere safer rather than blubbing about how awful it was.

13. At 3:37pm on 11 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:

I agreed with pretty much all of what you were saying before this (below); it is true that politicians are scared of a backlash if they make mistakes. That being said, I think we need a distinction between what should have been done in Iraq, and a failure to carry it out correctly, should be made. It's entirely possible to have the right idea (not that I believe the reasons for Iraq) but carry it out incompetently.

"Then the 'authority' point: we've been actively seeking to bring Gaddafi in from the cold - doing business with him (including arms deals, I believe) - plus the Lockerbie thing, working for the release of the (unsafely?) convicted bomber - all of that. This in my opinion detracts from our moral mandate to intervene"

This is the point I must protest. Doing wrong in the (very recent) past does not imply we should continue in that trend. Do two wrongs make a right? We can either sit around and consider how consistent we're being, or we can make sure fewer people who we claim to support die.

"This situation (for me) illustrates very well the benefits which could accrue from an ethical, as opposed to national interest, foreign policy. The 'cleaner' we are, the more effective we can be. Maybe."

Sure, I agree again. However, I would argue that were we seen now to be the friends of those who rise up against the likes of Gaddafi, and Cameron stops making highly publicised trips on arms deals before Musharraf's seat has even gotten cold, then we will gain favour and start to overturn out image in the Middle East and North Africa.

"Not to achieve regime change, for example. Very difficult issues though, these. Won't be a great outcome - especially for many people in Libya - if Gaddafi prevails and then lets rip internally. But we'd be better placed, come what may, if we didn't have the Iraq legacy and we'd been less close to the Colonel over the years; this is my point."

Of course I agree again. I support the Iraq war not for the reasons given - they were beyond stupid and unbelievable - but to depose a dictator who twice attempted and pretty much succeeded with genocide. That only became the reason much later, but I maintain that we should never have let it get that far - of course that requires us to accept responsibility for the actions of people in charge before many of us could even vote.

"I'm not going to lie but this makes me emotive and I'd like to personally punch Gaddafi on the nose." - stud @ 21

I rather like this sentence. Not completely sure why - but I do.

The UK invested billions in developing one of the world's best air superiority fighters - the Typhoon. It's far superior to anything the Libyan airforce has, its weapons are vastly more powerful and effective and the RAF's pilots are amongst the best in the world.

Other nations in the EU also have Typhoons and there are airbases within a suitable distance available to use to implement a NFZ.

I would think that a combination of cruise missiles and guided air munitions could be used to take out most the Libyan aircraft on the ground with little risk to civilians and any planes that did take off could be spotted by AWACs, then Typhoons scrambled to shoot them down within minutes.

IMHO, if the Libyan pilots knew this was being put in place, they'd either refuse to fly or would defect.

The UK and France both have amphibious assault capability.

Our two assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwalk can deliver a large armoured battlegroup of infantry and Challenger II tanks, whilst HMS Ocean would operate as a helicopter carrier that could deliver both heavy lift support and Apache gunship close air support, with frigate and destroyer escorts and Astute subs for protection.

I'd say that such an operation to take out Gaddafi in Tripoli could be completed in a matter of hours, then the Libyans could set up a new government under the support of the Arab League, whilst we left ASAP.

People forget that the UK saved Sierra Leone from the ravages of being terrorised by militias paid by diamond smugglers though a very effective military intervention, which the Sierra Leonians arfe eterrnally grateful for - when finally the US accepted that we couldn't stand by and watch genocide in Bosnia, the coalition acted and ended it. Only ground forces can take and hold territory and unless we decapitate the Libyan regime, it looks like the people are going to lose in the face of Gaddafi's heavy weapons.

All that sitting on our hands achieves is more dead and a rising tide of resentment that we did nothing to help. Acting decisively now is morally right and would do more to make other dictators realise that they should get out whilst the going is good without a bloodbath, or they might be next.

This is what the nation state is for - this is why we have armed forces - this would make the new Libyan government our allies for evermore and open a new chapter for the UK in the arab world - it would bury the shame of our involvment in George Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq on manufacured lies about WMD.

anyone who expects the EU, and particularly the UK to do anything about Libya are deluding themselves. None ofthe EU states want the expense or risk of establishing a no fly zone. We don't even have suddicient air power to achieve such a thing (as the only EU member who would possibly have the will to do ut anyway). The defence cuts taken recently have left us with aircraft carriers that don't have any aircraft, and expecting the RAF to operate over such a long distance (with the additional cost of in flight refeulling, and the fatigue issues due to long sortie times) is not realistic. Operating from Nato bases in Sardinia or Cyprus would require the agreement of countries who probably wouldn't want to be involved. Without the Carrier Air power of the USA, Gaddaffi is lkely to be able to commit whatever attrocities he likes while the UN sits, wringing it's feeble hands and shaking it's head in shame. The bitter rea;ity is that the world's financial problems have now spawned new problems for which there is no easy remedy. I imagine that other despots around tghe world are watching with interest to see Gaddaffi get aweay, literally, with murder; knowing that this will dissuade potential uprisings in their own countries.

Apparently we are in such a national emergency that we can not afford a forensic science service.

But according to snooty we can afford to spend millions bombing Libya.

Something not quite right here.

Are we really short of dosh?

Or is that only when it comes to funding things within the disunited kingdom?

re #21 & #39
I think most of us could come up with some leaders who we would like to punch on the nose ...
... and also stamp on their toes!