starting this thread, which i hope will be short-lived, to keep the board up to date with latest reports gleaned from the net

1836: Col Gaddafi's forces may have the advantage in firepower, but it seems a few new weapons are making their way into rebel hands. Rob Crilly of the Telegraph newspaper, who is in Benghazi, tweets: "some of the rebels have very new looking AK-47s today. Shiny and they are covering the muzzles to keep dust out

Maggie.

I am very disappointed in Cameron.

He has over reached my expectancy of him. 8-)

I thought, by his posturing, he and Osborne were leading the West into the Valley of the 500.

But, Cynic I am glad of your reassurance.

I hope somebody gives Osborne and Cameron an abacus before tomorrow.

The funding for the UK involvement in Libya comes out of a contingency fund for such emergencies and has little or no effect on our general finances.

And how is the Contingency Fund funded?

thank you haystack - exactly so .... peter, as you well know, it's an emergency fund aka a warchest that all gov'ts and many companies keep for just such occasions .... but imo., not relevant anyway for the reasons i gave previously

From the parliament web site

Waging war: Parliament's role and responsibility

"Supply for deployments may be obtained from within the ordinary defence appropriation or from the contingency fund in an emergency. Otherwise, it is an item in the Budget, sometimes subject to special funding arrangements."

.

you can have your view, but it must come as a great surprise to you that so many gov'ts and people including AL do not agree .... btw, i used "warchest" intentionally but clearly the subtle (might one say english?) humour behind that was beyond you, and yes, i most certainly mean in this instance that uk "had to afford" the stance and action taken - stance of words and no action would have been meaningless

My war chest is well hidden from the wife.

Joking aside IMHO Gadaffe will go into excile and escape punishment.

i think you are probably right bernard ..... a good pragmatic resolution to the problem; i guess chavez will take him in .... mind you, it does presuppose a modicum of cooperation from MG

.

and what does that drivel actually mean?

by the way, have you ever stated what YOU would do about libya, or even what stance (but clearly no action) you hold?

perhaps you are one of the crew that propounds, "a pox on both their houses; let the rebels be annihilated; it'll teach them a good lesson"?

.

"contingency fund"


I wish I had such, if it is magically filled by waving a wand,

I think it is an illusion or in case of some a delusional.

Hear I am going to be 45 a year better off.

How much worse off am I going to feel.

so you still sit on the fence ... great position provided the pickets aren't sharpened

i am not remotely uncomfortable with my own views ..... it may not be apparent (to you), but i thought pretty carefully about what i considered to be the right action in this theatre, and have not changed it

however, also as already clearly posted, i would be very uncomfortable indeed if land forces were deployed for this would not only be in complete contravention to UN 1973, but much more importantly, against the wishes of both AL and even the libyan rebels themselves

as for resolution, i would hope that MG is disposed of very quickly by one means or another - the preferred route would be that he is removed willingly or not, and exiled to venezuela or whatever other country might take him and his family

i don't think a (show) trial as happened to SH is in the best interests of anyone, and merely prolongs the problem

.

again, i chose "theatre" intentionally, for all sorts of good and fun reasons!

your last para is true, but nevertheless a situation can only (has to be) be dealt with according to the facts and situation at the time ...... even in everyday life and buisness it is impossible to see exactly where a certain course will end up, so "best judgement" must be applied .... passively doing nothing is not or not should not be an option

.

no that is not what i said at all ...... i said "passively doing nothing" which is far from the same thing ...... careful consideration etc may lead one to the conclusion that no action should be taken - that is "actively doing nothing" .....

in this instance, my view is that such a stance is not and would not be in the best interests of the world at large ..... of course oil is an important factor, but that is not just greed and i assume it does not need to be spelt out ..... burnt-out tobacco farms do not, i am afraid, have the same effect on world economics (and politics)

.