Not in the context of the UN resolution which calls for safeguarding the civilian population. If Gadaffi had not been killing his own civilians and flagrantly breaking his own ceasefires then Cameron et al would most certainly be guilty as you have charged. Problem is that he has...in case you hadn't noticed. If you honestly think that you can trust Gadaffi so hold his hands up and say "Sorry guys, it's all my fault and I will never do anything bad again" then you are living in a complete fantasy land. There is no way this will end until Gadaffi goes. Any Libyan will tell you that, Cameron is proving that he is at least in touch with the ordinary Libyan even if he is not in touch with his own people.Originally Posted by FunkyTeaPot
How does shelling your own civilians with cluster bombs and phosphorous shells fit into your interpretation of what is acceptable under international law?
Interesting synopsis. I guess that explains why the UK/France/US has intervened in Darfur, Cote d'Ivoire, Gaza, Tibet, Mexico...NOT!
Oh and conveniently ignoring Bahrain, where our friendly Saudi and Bahraini allies have been shooting dissidents on the street, committing genocide on a wide scale, and torturing anyone who opposes the Bahrain Royal Family. Nice friends we have!
Just out of interest, how has Gaddafi been ruthlessly exterminating his own population? Even John Simpson said (back at the end of February) that most command posts outside Tripoli and Benghazi were deserted. Again, the LibLabCon Nazi Party has led us into a war of opportunism and lies. There has been little or no proof that Gaddafi has been killing anyone else but the rebels.
If he has been dropping shells, they've been handily supplied by us.
That's exactly what we are doing in Libya at the moment. Apparently there are depleted uranium shells all over the place, where our jets have been dropping them willy-nilly. No doubt the latest cancer spike outside of Fallujah (caused incidentally by Allied depleted uranium shells) will occur in Benghazi and all points East up to the border.
Nothing like democratic regime change, eh?
Last edited by sickofthelies; 17-04-2011 at 10:44 PM.
I doubt that Clegg will do the decent thing. Most Western political elites have supported or gone along with this intervention in a civil war either to rid themselves of a troublesome regime, claim a stake in Libyan oil reserves (the largest in Africa) or, more probably, to get in 'front of the Arab Spring curve'. You must remember that many in the West were happy to snuggle up to Murbarak and the regime in Tunisia (Sarkosy's supporters particularly) so this was an opportinity to be seen on the side of the rebels/people? Unfortunately they chose the wrong country since it was the least Islamist, the most stable (secret police goons not withstanding), and it turns out the most divided (regardless of media propaganda to the contrary). The UN resolution was the operation's fig-leaf and that has been breached in practice let alone in spirit!
There are many more countries that are more 'deserving' of intervention but our leaders would never follow through. Unfortunately our politicians simply cannot tell the truth anymore and have to pretend one thing and do another. I'd have more respect for them if they had put forward a case for regime change (which they wouldn't because Libya would not have even been in the top twenty) rather than pretending it was a humanitarian effort. PS. I thought the Coalition said we were broke? Firing off expensive missles doesn't quite match does it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks