³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

just heard the Libyan Foreign Minister announcing a ceasefire.....doesn't that make any military action 'we' now may take against Libya illegal?

'After Gaddafi declared immediate cease fire, he started shelling residential areas of Misurata city' - We Are All Khaled Said.

I think Gaddafi is just giving his appeasers in the west the nod so that they can bleat about how valiant and sensible he is.

2 Sid
Views may differ on western military involvement in Libya but apologists for Gaddafi are few and far between. Certainly respected commentators on the left, from George Galloway to Robert Fisk, have called the Gaddafi regime for the corrupt and murderous dictatorship that it is.

Not often you hear 'respected commentator' and 'George Galloway' in the same sentence.

4 Alan
I disagree with many of George Galloway's opinions and he can be an objectionable (but over-parodied) rabble rouser.
But... he was one of the very few people to foresee the Arab uprisings and, if nothing else, deserves some respect.

3. lucien desgai

There's always one. Lucien ...

6. Sid
"There's always one. Lucien ..."

That was meant to be a comma, of course ...

There's always one, Lucien ...

I think you mean 'There's only one Lucien' Sid.

It was a bravura performance Lucien!

Phew,the UN does it again, resolution achieved, ultimatum sent to Libya
immediate compliance,ceasefire declared,stand down the jets.
Now Bahrain,ditto and the Saudis will be back over the bridge in a
jiffy or a tank or an armoured personnel carrier,whatever.Thank goodness
pigs can fly;except in no fly zones

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.

Watching the footage of the Flogger getting shot down, am I the only one thinking there may already be some 'friendlies' on the ground in Libya armed with shoulder launched SAMs?

It's an extraordinary picture, Mr Nutt (/news/world-africa-12794589%29. Is that the escaping pilot in the background?

Looks like it, but perhaps he left it a bit late as his 'chute doesn't appear to be deploying?

11 mac
No, you really shouldn't say ... Carolyn Quinn is an excellent and fully grown journalist who does not deserve to be patronised with belittling feint praise ("grown immeasurably in stature and self confidence") which would never be said of a male presenter.

:)

Lucien (15): Hear! Hear!

15. lucien desgai

:)

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.

I sometimes wonder what it must be like on planet mac. But then I realise it's just a product of a deranged mind, so I ignore it.

20, your poor syntax gives you away Mac!

You have a very distinctive style Mac.

Tornados, refuelling by tri stars, tomohawk missiles, storm shaddow, sub marine launches...Blimey in one Weekend. What are we doing?

I do not agree with agressive behavior towards your own country folk but isn't this a bit heavy handed under 1973, ie too much too late....The UN seems to me a very clumsy/clunky machine and is slow off the mark on this one.

24. Mindclearly

It doesn't seem heavy-handed to me - simply making clear that we are determined. Earlier might have been better - but the free world does move slowly, not necessarily a bad thing.

If the US really wants the world to be rid of Gadaffi, then they should enrol him in the US military - the friendly fire is almost guaranteed to do for him promptly, and it'll also stop them shelling innocent civilians.

The lead news on al-Jazeera is that much of the Yemeni army is now supporting the demonstrators and that the regime there is about to collapse. I'm looking at the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ website and listening to World Update on the World Service news stream and there's no mention of events in Yemen. Very odd.

27. Events in Yemen not being reported in the media is not a first. There are events in the recent past, ie the last 18 months, that have not been reported. Uncle Sam has some strong influences of what gets reported as does other powerful al-Jazeera funders....Our media is blinkered by news they feel is news worthy, or report on what they witness.

28. Mindclearly

Yup - we'll have to wait till they send Simpson there ...

I have mentioned the role of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ before ... not much has changed.

So - in a desperate bid to justify their continued existence the RAF fly 4 Tornadoes 3000 miles so they can say they joined in too.

If only we had some ships that could carry these aircraft to where they are needed - an aircraft carrier perhaps? Better still, if we had some jets specifically designed to take off and land from such ships – the Sea Harrier perhaps?

But no – we have no aircraft carriers and no Harriers anymore because the MOD decided to waste millions keeping the irrelevant Tornadoes in flying instead. If the government really wants to save money then getting rid of the vast bulk of the more than 80,000 MOD bureaucrats, who have so completely failed us over the past few years, would be a good place to start.

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News presenter 23 minutes into the hourly broadcast announcing the imminent resignation of the Yemeni president ... "All eyes on Libya it's easy to forget that things are happening elsewhere in the region."
Precisely.

31. arthur
"If only we had some ships that could carry these aircraft to where they are needed - an aircraft carrier perhaps? Better still, if we had some jets specifically designed to take off and land from such ships – the Sea Harrier perhaps?"

Or if only there was a friendly country - Italy, say - which had a base we could use - like Gioia del Colle for instance ...

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

Arthur has a point Sid, although not about the Sea Harriers which would not have been suited to this task. Yes, there are bases in Italy etc, but how to do what needs to be done when there are no bases...

Mac - is that an argument to let the innocent die?

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

I am concerned over the apparent differences in interpretation of the UN resolution 1973 by the Military and the Politicians. When I listened to John Humphries interview William Hague on the Today programme this morning it very much reminded me of the "War" episode of "The Day Today" and seemed as though John Humphries was hoping to escalate the situation into something it is not.

May I suggest that ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ presenters stop playing games with the politicians and concentrate on discovering truth and revealing genuine insights into their thinking and opinions.

It was very provocative of ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Breaking to interpret the interview as an official go ahead to target Gadaffi on Twitter that was later retracted. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is there to report and interpret the news for us, not make it.

'Arthur has a point Sid'

So do I!

Ellis (37): Perhaps Mr. Hague's own words from last month made Today pursue that particular line? (And it would have been an editorial choice, I'd imagine)

/news/uk-politics-12590167

Ellis @ 37: Hear, hear!

Ellis and Sid: Three weeks ago, William Hague said to the British public via the Andrew Marr Show "... it is time for Col Gaddafi to go, that is the best hope for Libya."

I would respectfully suggest that, having said this, it was legitimate for others to pursue this point with him in the light of the current military action.

Mr. Hague is choosing his words more carefully now: perhaps he should have chosen them more carefully three weeks ago? The outside world will be watching and listening to anything said by our government on the Libyan crisis.

Many quarters called for the leaders in Tunisia and Egypt to go as well. That was calling for regime change. They went.
Prior to the UN resolution, calls were made for Gaddafi to go. He didn't go but instead launched attacks on his own people. The UN resolution hasn't changed anything in respect of Gaddafi's position.

Big Sister @ 41: yes, I know. There is a difference between thinking that someone should go (and saying so), and doing something about it. I think Gaddafi should go - but I'm not going to invade Libya and shoot him.

43 Sid
I suppose that the difference between you and the government which William Hague represents is that you're not buzzing around Libya with very big bombs and guns.

Is 18:12pm tomorrow morning?

Anyway, I suspect no-one here knows the thinking that brought resolution 1973 about but feel sure that stepping beyond its bounds would be a really bad thing to do. Politicians need to take care about what they say as it can get disseminated to places where they least expect at remarkable speed.

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

mac (#46) is spinning like crazy in his latest post, drawing conclusions and stating his own wishes as fact. Looking at ABC News* (as he references) then yes, there is mention of two bombs being dropped between the local villagers and one of the downed aircrew. However, it goes on to say that the villagers:

"The pilot was eventually protected and given food and water by villagers who had initially thought the American plane was one of Gadhafi's. The villagers even expressed gratitude to the pilot for preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi. ".

There's no mention of villagers being injured. I also looked at Al Jazeera (hardly a western news outlet), and there again is no mention of locals being injured. Instead, the locals were welcoming of both of the downed aircrew, and looked after them.

So, mac, if you're going to proclaim things as facts, it's a good idea to actually check what your references say before you mention them. It just goes to show how out of touch you are with reality.

You proclaim yourself to being a man of peace, keen for all to be treated equally, yet you are happy for the Gaddafi family to use force and brutality against the common people of Libya who do not want to be ruled by a dictator without contest. Such a stand is hardly the stand of a principled man. Your lack of judgement would be astounding, but unfortunately it is what we've come to expect from you.

Well said FF.

PBS 46, As the fighter wasn't shot down, the rest of your post isn't worth reading.

That's a good point too, DavMcN

Is Colonel Gaddafi looking for a

The west is destined for the
Mind you it is only one persons point of view.

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

Mr Fearless @ 47: Wouldn't you expect someone who idolises Pol Pot also to worship at the shrine of Gaddafi?

A reporters

More on those bombs being dropped on

Sid (#54) You make a very valid point....

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.

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

59 - Mac - "I feel no respect at all for Pol Pot. He was a dictator." Can you hear yourself?

61 Alan
I'm sure he can. :o)

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.

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.

Could we please stop all this ridiculous talk about "legality" and "illegality" in the context of UN politics?

At a human level, it is grotesque to listen to lawyers nit-picking over whether it is "legal" to protect someone from being murdered by a tyrant. At a legal level, we should not respect any process that decides cases on a political vote even if all the voters are ligitimate representatives of their constituancies. To have the difference between "legality" and "illegality" depend on whether the unrepresentative Chinese regeme decides politically to excercise its veto or not is totally grotesque.

The position of the UN is totally absurd and illogical - how can a regeme be so bad its people need to be militarily protected from it by outside force, and yet it is not ligitimate to remove that regime from power? This is like insisting the police have to protect everyone from being murdered, but they cannot arrest the murderers!

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.

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.

From Mac, through various aliases, to PasserStandingBy, and now JohnJackSparrow.

Not sure what your problem is with that, Mac - after all, you want the democratically acclaimed Gaddafi to stay on in Libya. Why not ditto Mubarak in Egypt?

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