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

.

yes, but no! .... i think it would be the lazy and potential disastrous option in this instance to sit around and do nothing .... few things in life are certain, and sometimes one has an obligation to act in a certain way according to the balance of probability as presented at the time

no it's not a "convenience" but (almost) common sense tells me that those who wish to destabilise will assuredly make the most of the opportunities arising in the whole m/e region

a bit too complicated for my limited brain! ..... in this instance, had the "majority" not recommended action, then it would have been very difficult if not impossible to justify it ..... i have a very simple view on things - it's easily muddled or even muddied or confused by frightfully clever philosophical argument (i'ld rather leave that to the talmudic scholars) - but "unfair" as it might seem to the idealist, for the world to live in comparative peace, which is surely no bad thing, then those who hold the wherewithal sometimes have to apply it, "it" being the least of all perceived and arguably subjective evils ..... and no, there is not and cannot be any certainty as to what the ultimate outcome will be

N,
I agree with your sentiment, but differ slightly as well. (As you might expect.)

I am dubious about the underlying motivation of many interventions into other countrys affairs.

Generally, the driving force is for the financial gain of the external parties.

However, I think that if you see to warring parties and one or more parties are preparing to commit murder of the non-participating population it may be advantageous to do so, even if it necessitates the use of force.

Again, the hoped for and expected results of the actions would be that the overall cost in life would be less than not doing so.

It means drawing them to a table and evaluating and mediating in the problem. Far from easy.

It happened in Northern Island, which I watched develop as a problem from late 1950s (the likes of Paisley and Devlin) and until the recent time. (The underlying injustices were there from time seeming immemorial.)

I think Callaghan sending in the troops there was a necessary and probably reduced the carnage and bloodshed, although at times the presence of Peace Keepers did not seem to be doing what was intended of them.

But, there was bloody mindedness on the part of the Irish Catholics, the Irish Protestants and the British.

The emotions were similar to the ME now, but the weapons are smaller and the carnage less.

The results after a long time have been a relatively peaceful NI although there are still a minority of idiots (political and criminal) who are prepared to reopen violent confrontation.
=============

In Libya, I am not sure whether there is outside interference, but wouldnt be surprised and that may account for some of the improving organisation of the Rebels.

I would prefer a secular state to occur, but that has to be at the will of the indigenous population. However, I think, that if external intervention leads to a representative democratically elected government, with less blood occurs due to the present military intervention, that it is a good thing.

But, I would like to see a more powerful United Nations able to deal with problems of this nature and able to make humanitarian interventions.
================

Cynic,

You do ramble on.

hahaha! ..... 50/75% less words than thee .... have read your "ifs" but what is your recommendation for the here and now - we all know hindsight is infallible!?

.

good luck all - short update....

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Central & South Asia Europe Middle East



Europe

NATO to take over Libya operations

Alliance announces it will assume overall responsibility for enforcing UN-mandated mission.
Last Modified: 27 Mar 2011 20:15
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback

NATO will take overall responsibility for carrying out the UN-mandated mission in Libya [Reuters]

NATO is to assume full command of operations in Libya from the US-led force that has been conducting air attacks against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's leader.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary general, announced the agreement on Sunday following a meeting in Brussels.

"We have directed NATO's top operational commander to begin executing this operation with immediate effect," he said in a statement.

"Our goal is to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat from the Gaddafi regime.

"NATO will implement all aspects of the UN resolution. Nothing more, nothing less," he said, referring to the UN Security Council resolution that authorised military action over Libya.

Paul Brennan, Al Jazeera's correspondent, reporting from Brussels said: "NATO was already involved in enforcing the no-fly zone and the arms embargo.

"Now they are going to take overall command which means they will [also] take responsibility for protecting Libyan civilians on the ground. It's a big step forward."

Week of debate

The operations will be led by Canadian General Charles Bouchard, NATO said.

In a statement released in Naples after NATO took over enforcement of the no-fly zone, Bouchard said the alliance "will do everything it can to deny any use of air power and it will do so with care and precision to avoid harming the people of Libya".

Experts said that a full transition to NATO command would take about 48 hours.

The agreement, reached after just two hours of talks, ends a week of heated debate, much of it between NATO members France and Turkey, over the Libya mission's command structure.

After eight days of strikes on Libyan targets, Washington is eager to quickly hand responsibility for air strikes to the military alliance.

The air raids have already tipped the balance away from Gaddafi's regular military to the lightly armed rebels, although the two sides remain at a stalemate in key cities.


Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

M .... i have pretty much answered your first and main issue already .... as for you, i'm afraid you're great at being full of rhetoric and general soapbox codswallop, while (not very) skilfully avoiding nailing any colours to the mast whatsoever ..... hardly commendable

M

Why not just state what you think the Coalition should have done about the Libyan situation?

I am quite clear on this issue; I am sick of the slaughter that elected or unelected governments inflict on their own people, or the tacit approval of such by doing nothing to stop the atrocities. The collateral damage (which inevitably accompanies kinetic action) is of course hugely regrettable, but I suspect if MG wins this conflict, you aint seen nuthin yet.

I agree entirely that the UN is a useless organisation.

Here is an example of an outside influence on Libya.

"Gaza medics await the approval of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which has been handed power in Egypt for a humanitarian aid mission to enter Libya following the departure of most of the country's medical staff.

Sixteen names were chosen out of 100 paramedics who wanted to participate in the mission. They have coordinated with the Arab doctors federation and will gain momentum with more doctors and medical supplies while transiting Egypt should authorities allow their entry, according to secretary of the Gaza paramedics union Yousef Fahjan.

We have most felt the pain of the Libyans, considering that we ourselves are subjected to continous daily aggression. This feeling is the greatest motivation for our aiding the Libyans alongside our humanitarian and professional duty, especially after most of the paramedics have left from there and we learned about the shortage of paramedics.

This is the least we can do to reciprocate the Libyans, who have stood by our sides during the war on Gaza. Most of those who contacted us to lift our morale during the war were Libyans, Fahjan said.

Libya had also sponsored five aid convoys to the Gaza Strip dubbed the Quds convoy and donated five million dollars to reconstruct Gaza following the last Israeli war."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12876696

gla

Wow, a few medics.

Just can't help yourself can you? Don't you realise you need to seek your own medical assistance for this compulsion?

UN - it can certainly be a very frustrating and slow and at times, totally ineffectual ..... this is always the problem when trying to reach decisions by effectively unanimous consensus - one veto often derails the whole ..... however, overall it is a force for good (corrupt? .... if at all, then minimal even compared to IOC or FIFA!) and, i think, a necessary device to rein in at least some unilateral excesses.



peter - i assume from the tone of your post that you support the action so far being taken to support the libyan rebels ..... that being so, what do you think should be done next?

assuming you concur that we (UN+ AL etc) should not send in ground forces, do you think we should supply arms through one channel or another?

taking it that MG is removed by one means or another, should we help (whatever that may mean!) libya to be governed by democratic means or do we just walk away and leave them to their own devices, shambolic and violent as that may well be at least in the initial stages?

Rag tag rebel army have no chance of taking capital without more help from UN forces.

perhaps, though i am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a valid judgement on that ..... mind you, if increasing numbers of the populace and army defect from GM, then all bets change anyway

but tell me bernard, are you suggesting that UN would need to send in ground forces or that the rebels would need to be sent (even more) arms from outside?

would you support the concept of UN ground forces being used, and if so, as front line troops or pretty much just as bystanders to any military action?

Make it an even fight give the rebels more arms.

ok, but then how high a risk that those arms will ultimately fall into the "wrong hands" - e.g. al qaeda - and is that a risk worth taking?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12874014
Libya: No arms for rebels, UK's Liam Fox says

Coalition countries attacking targets in Libya will not supply arms to anti-Gaddafi rebels, UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox has told the BBC.

There are reports in the Sunday Times claiming plans to supply weapons to rebels are being drawn up.

But Dr Fox said there was a UN arms embargo across the entire country, adding "we have to accept that".

unless such arms were routed through AL or similar!

God help the rebels, and their family if Gadaffe stays and overpowers the them.

now the platitudes are out of the way, please may we have your view on post 232