´óÏó´«Ã½

I think the Today interview and discussion of who are the opposition to Gaddafi was a good line that should be furthered with those in the UN who have abandonned Gaddafi. I think change is all fair and well as long as the change does end up with change not just another old boy club creaming off the wealth of the country for their own betterment.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think that before commenting is necessary to refer to this page /news/world-africa-12782972 which contains the text of resolution 1973 and some analysis and interpretation.

The resolution does not specify an "end game". It is for the Libyan people to decide for themselves how their future will pan out, not for the likes of me thousands of miles away and having never visited Libya and having met just one or two Libyans.

By stating a plan for "regime change" or "end game" against which to judge the success of the mission would be a mistake for any politician, however tempting and headline grabbing it may be to do so.

I think you need to read [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting, on
26 February 2011 in conjunction with Resolution 1973 (2011) Adopted by the Security Council at its 6498th meeting, on
17 March 2011 to get the full big picture.

At lunchtime I heard Martha Kearney asking the same question that, Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys (and I’m sure others) have been banging on about. Hopefully the crystal clear answer that she got from Ming Campbell will stop others raising it again... in an attempt to ‘make’ news.

To badly paraphrase what he said: ‘If Gaddafi is in the lead tank attacking some centre of population or in the lead role within a Control & Command Centre then harm to him would be covered by the UN resolution. The UN resolution does not sanction his assassination.’

I think that’s pretty easy to understand.

P Nutts links don't work for me. If they don't work for you either resolutions 1970 and 1973 can be reached from here:

Thanks Ellis.....and I did 'bash' test them first.
:-(

TIH 15, C Quinn kept 'banging on about it' (targetting Gaddafi) last night. I guess conjecture is easier than just reporting what has actually happened.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dav (9) The question arose because there were conflicting responses from ministers and the Armed Forces. Because of that, it's a valid line of questioning, as it is something that affects exactly what our forces in theatre are allowed to target under international law.

Not only that, Fred, it's something that is at the back of most folks' minds, if we are honest. It is difficult to imagine a satisfactory end game that involves a living angry ex dictator - though I think somehow we must try!

To kill him you have to know where he is. To find him ask SIS (MI6) and then blow up somewhere else.

RJM 13, Like a Chinese embassy?

Inflation is higher than the government admits. Tomahawk cruise missiles started the week at 250,000 and ended the week at 900,000.

@14
There is more than 1?

One thing we can be certain of is that he is not in the Venezuelan embassy.

Perhaps we should bomb the mad dogs in Vauxhall.

(1) I think change is all fair and well as long as the change does end up with change not just another old boy club creaming off the wealth of the country for their own betterment.

You will not be voting, then, I take it, mindclearly?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ghadaffi and his family,once rounded up,should be sent with his tent to the
Tsunami stricken area of Japan.Here he will learn how to clean up a devastated
state:and possibly a little humility.
As for Libya lets hope,plus sa change plus le meme chose,does not apply.

... plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, even.

It's the good people who stand by and do nothing, in the face of injustice who are wrecking the world. You are judged by what you did...Not by what you hoped to do... if the time was right. There never is a convenient time to do the right thing, only the awkwardness of now.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

(17) Redheylin - Voting for what?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Once all the dust has settled in Libya (which I sincerely hope will be soon), I think they may need some advice on voting systems.

Maybe they could do that paired voting system? Counting it seems to go on until the following election and would suit a dictatorship, wouldn't it?

If that was the desired outcome, Lady Sue, the system you mention might suit very well. However, if they are to move towards a democracy, perhaps they'll need to go with one of the more conventional systems, in spite of their defects.

Why is my comment yellow?

Probably just as well Big Sis. From a radio interview I heard on Saturday, that paired voting system is not the simplest to understand and even more difficult to explain. Some chap kept saying the same thing over and over and didn't make any sense at all.

Was that the chap that Eddie gave up on, Lady Sue?

Read 24 now while you can. I predict another disapairance.

I heard that chap on about that voting system on Any Answers too. Sounded a very complicated system..

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

32 jonnie

Yes it was a very good programme. Here's the link for anyone who missed it ...
/iplayer/console/b00zzm8x

... not sure if Sid's heard it yet.

:o)

ASimpleton: You sound like you know all about that system, too. Incidentally, do you always self reference?

Jonnie (#32) I listened, I really did, but it came across as a set of half-baked mumblings before disapairing into incoherence....

Fearless (#37) I've actually just had another listen and think the idea may work well on ISIHAC. --

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

ASimpleton: "a simple amendment"? Didn't sound simple to me. Sounded like the Marx Brothers, "The party of of the first part..." is hereinafter called: "the party of the first part..." and "The party of of the second part..." is hereinafter called: "the party of the second part...

Pairty poopers!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

A Simpleton. The best moniker yet.
Any answers? Oh, how we laughed.

Horse, you are naughty. ;o)

It seems ASimpleton has been sprung (again).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

KingBeaker (46) - I've got a flush. That beats your two pair!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sounds like a recipe for mediocrity, KB.

KB@46: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! It's the way you tell 'em!