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

oil is indeed the key, but not only just as a "simple" commodity, for there are all sorts of important sub-texts and far-reaching consequences that attach to it

itlob - i posted on this issue, but tribalism, yes to some extent, but i do not think there is any underlying sunni/shia animosity in libya

fred - a ground force, whether or not under the auspices of UN, would be dynamite in the region, and (i think) should be avoided almost at all costs ...... it';s reasonable to guess that the rebels will indeed oust GM within say the next month or two, but it is then that the fun and games begin .... i would like to think that AL would take the lead at that juncture, but i think the chances of them doing so are long odds indeed

itlob
cheers mate putin is not blinkered unlike the west and human rights debacle which is a joke unless you are cherie blair and pals

Cynic.

You have more faith in the Arab League than I do. I wish mine was stronger, but here is the membership:-

Arab League
22 members[hide]

* Algeria * Bahrain * Comoros * Djibouti * Egypt
* Iraq * Jordan * Kuwait * Lebanon * Libya(suspended)
* Mauritania * Morocco * Oman * Palestine * Qatar * Saudi Arabia * Somalia * Sudan * Syria
* Tunisia * United Arab Emirates * Yemen

My feeling is that the UN did well to get any agreement with this group. Hope I am wrong.


I suppose a move when "hostilities" are suspended, then there could be a call for an United Nations policing force.

Interesting to watch the resonances of this "upset".

i had no knowledge at all of AL until this libyan thing blew up ..... a UN "policing force" of some description would possibly have some benefit, but assuredly it could not be imposed and would have to follow a specific request primarily from the libyan rebels

If the AL want a "peace keeping" force they can supply it themselves.
They soon want us "kaffirs, monkeys and dogs" to expend life and limb and treasure for them, rather than them doing it themselves.
And afterwards they will continue to hate us for being kaffirs.
Why on earth should we interfere?
They may not have the ability to project power as easily as the US, but they have forces they can fly in on their own civilian and military planes or over land from Egypt.
Do they? No, they are shrewd enough to let us kaffirs do it. They must be laughing at our high falutin' principles of caring for civilians being slaughtered by their fellow Muslims whilst they do nothing.
We really are mugs.

itlob - please check it out, but i think you may be factually incorrect, for i'm sure i saw that at least saudi was providing some hardware ..... as for subsequent policing, i do not think AL is organised in that way ..... i don't know if all the AL countries are part of UN, but i suspect they are, and if so, then support for a "police force" would be likely to be forthcoming if requested by the libyans themselves

I've not seen that cynic. I know two of the Gulf states promised to provide fighter-bombers to police the NFZ but have failed to do so.
Reminds me of the French support for the Iraq war when they disembarked their planes from their carrier before sending it to support Desert Storm LOL

I do feel our perfectly decent humanitarian feelings are being exploited here.
Votes of AL support come cheap and they have already expressed reservations.

There is one important factor when considering the AL as the "troops on the ground" or a interim "Police Force" in Libya and that is for many the last thing they want in Libya is a "democratically elected government". This would be like throwing a petrol on an incendiary bomb to them.

America and the Bush family would not particularly happy to Saudi Arabia under threat of rapid change to a political regime they have no control over.

Israel would likewise is probably sweating and very unhappy at the probable loss of some of its "allies".

Cameron's, Haque's and Bomber Fox bright intervention seems to have been ill-conceived and have potentially ill-thought out consequences

It seems more than likely that China and Russia are viewing the spoils of this adventure with knowing smiles.

,,

surprise surprise, israel is not part of AL and was libya ever its friend!? .....

do you mean general public or countries do not want a democratically elected gov't in libya?
if the latter, then which among AL members?

and by the way, why do you always like to harp on about it being uk gov't's responsibility for the NFZ?
that's bollocks and you know it!

sorry fred, but you're quickly reverting to your gaza persona, which is not to be commended

Why is the spectre of entering a Muslim country one of the dominant factors. The conflict in Libya has nothing to do with religion. It is merely the population rising up against a violent dictator. If we can accept the rebel government as being more representative of the will of the Libyan people then go into Libya at the defence and the request of the people in the east.

Ricardo

I was / am in favour of military intervention to prevent MG slaughtering his own people and I doubt anyone would deny that outcome should the rebels fail. I imagine the coalition partners were desperately hoping MG would step down in the face of military might, but unfortunately that was always going to be unlikely. Had he done so I suspect there may have been a relatively peaceful transition to some kind of democratic government without the need for AL / UN / NATO oversight. What we're now faced with is the high possibility of mission creep and the potential for a peace keeping force when MG is either defeated or departs of his own accord. Although it is difficult to ascertain the size of his support, he certainly has some and reconciliation between the opposing parties could be difficult.

UNSCR 1973 imposes a no-fly zone and protection of Libyan civilians, but does not go so far as to impose regime change; actually I think regime change is an implied task of the UNSCR, simply because it is inconceivable to believe the civilian population can be protected unless he is removed from power. I guess the politicians hope that if the rebels work up a head of steam they can overcome government forces and as sentiment changes, MG's support will dwindle until his position becomes untenable. What we don't know for sure is how committed his support is / will be.

As to arming the rebels? No. Although they don't have the same heavy equipment the government possess, as they make progress, government troops will swap sides taking this equipment with them. In any event the Coalition are levelling the playing field by flattening the heavy armour.

What does concern me is that this is a similar situation to Iraq, in so much as there was a plan for war, but no plan for peace. Inevitably the speed of action was dictated by the imminent onset of slaughter, but I'm not sure we or anyone else knows what a new Libya will represent. Who are the rebels and will they have the support of the majority. Many unanswered questions and the genie is out of the bottle.

peter - i don't think it is fair to draw a parallel with iraq, for there, we were all suckered into an immediate invasion based on an outright lie (as it happens) ..... however, there is no question that the genie is indeed out of the bottle, and of course no one can predict the future of libya with any certainty at all .... very much fingers crossed that the transition, when indeed it comes, will be comparatively untraumatic and not require anything draconian from the (world) coalition

The parallel is only the lack of a plan for peace rather than the manner in which we were suckered into OP TELIC.

can one have a plan for peace when "we" are currently only peripherally involved and there is perhaps even less certainty than usual?

Any plan for peace assumes a knowledge of who and what the rebels represent. I hope there is at least some understanding of that particular aspect.

Cynic,

Before responding, sometimes it would be beneficial to engage your brain.

I didn't say Libya was a friend of Israel's, but check the Arab league and see who accepted the Israel as a state.

Check the relationship of the previous Egyptian administration,

Check relationship with Saudi Arabia and some of Syria's "actions".

Sarkowsy and Cameron led the charge, although they had not considered doing so, until I think they thought it politically advantageous and out of self aggrandisement.

I thought many of their early statements likely to entrench Gaddafi
and increase the likely bloodshed.

I believe Cameron is sometimes spokesman for Britain, but would be better sticking to his salesman role.

Hays.

In one way religion has little to do with the current "conflict" in Libya, but there are many in the ME, who will argue that any "Western" intervention is the beginning of a new crusade.

Especially, if it suits their purpose. Reality is not considered useful sometimes.

That is part of the problem.

as i have said several times, israel is a total sideshow in this scene

you are welcome to your view of the current uk gov't, even if what you tend to state as fact is rather removed from same ..... potentially politically advantageous? .... quite possibly, but that is what all politics are about .... self-aggrandisement? .... i don't buy that except arguably in general political terms, and if that is the case, then the rest of parliament applauded cameron's stance anyway