Is Gadaffi a legitimate target

hattikins


Joined: 17/02/2008
Posts: 2793

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 14:10

William Hague has hinted that Gadaffi may be a legitimate target, where do you think that fits in with the No Fly zone that was agreed.

hattikins


Joined: 17/02/2008
Posts: 2793

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 14:21

Sorry, that should be Gaddafi.

0maintenance


Joined: 22/09/2010
Posts: 2179

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 14:28

I feel he should be punished by his own people,not any outside force.

Pugwash


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 1797

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 14:48

Hopefully he will be 0m, he still needs to be held to account for 270 deaths on Pan Am, 103 and of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, murdered by his thugs.

hattikins


Joined: 17/02/2008
Posts: 2793

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 14:52

He was never called to account for either of those issues, in fact Tony Bliar and others felt no shame at sucking up to him, so why now, could it be the oil by any chance.

I wonder if we are going to get caught in yet another war which is not ours.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 15:17

msge 5



Western policy changed towards Gadaffi after 9/11. Gadaffi supposedly helped in the war against al qeada (hence I think he is calling the rebels al qaeda terroists) . I know Blair is hated by many people, but it should also be remembered that Blair managed to persuade Gadaffi to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Unless he has some stashed away, he cant now use these on his own people. No doubt Gadaffi saw what happened in Iraq and realised he could also be taken out, so the leopard did give the impression of changing his spots. (although no doubt he still tortured his people)



The coalition do not have a mandate to take out Gadaffi. The goal is to cause the two sides in to a stalemate so that they negotiate around the table. This wont fit with Britain and the US as they would like to take Gadaffi out.

Coachie



Joined: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2135

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 16:03

Hatti..Cameron is doing a Thatcher...She took us into the first Gulf war when the econonomy was really dodgy and a election looming.Nothing like a nice little war to distract the public from what is happening on the home front. The only difference between Cameron and Blair is,Blair was conned into it by Bush and his make believe weapns of mass distruction.Cameron has gone charging in like a bull in a china shop. Wonder if there will be an enquiry seven years later to see who is to blame????? Not much oil to worry about in Libya,about 2%of the world needs.

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 16:16

behind the scenes the men in dark suits are hoping he is taken out. publicly no one can be a target because then every leader becomes an automatic target when they are disliked by the boys' club!

getting the general public to think about Gadaffi whilst the Tories dismantle the NHS, lay off 100,000s of people and change everything Labour has done in one year is what they are doing ... and where does all the money come from?

Jeannie


Joined: 04/08/2009
Posts: 3283

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 16:44

walkerscott, message 8. I would have thought that "the men in dark suits", rather than hoping he is taken out, would be planning more "how" and "when" he is going to be taken out.



Hattikins, message 5. Coincidentally, we had the almost exact conversation last night, whilst watching the news. According to today's lunchtime news bulletin, it would appear that there are many conflicting opinions as to whether or not he is a legitimate target. Opinion seems to change from day to day and who's expressing said opinion.

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
21/03/2011 16:57

oil oil oil

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 00:55

OMaintenance. I also think his own people should deal with him.

Quarmby


Joined: 15/09/2008
Posts: 975

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 09:32

The population of Libya is not safe whilst the madman is still living. The UN mandate is to help protect them. Quite simple, the madman has to be exterminated, asap.

hattikins


Joined: 17/02/2008
Posts: 2793

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 09:54

Gaddafi is without doubt a madman, one of many in power in the world, but do we, or anyone else, have the right to try to impose our will on another country. What if someone decided that our leaders were not suitable ( as if) and decided to come in and take them out. Trying to protect the people of Libya is one thing but I'm not sure the UN mandate gave the all clear to go after Gaddafi himself.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 10:46

msge 13



"but do we, or anyone else, have the right to try to impose our will on another country.



This is always going to be a very contentious issue. I believe that if a tyrant is murdering his/her people then the International community can take steps to do something about it. Our politicians , on both sides, believe that this is true, which was reflected in their vote yesterday. The problem, of course, is the inconsistency of our interventions. The other big issue is the end game in Libya. We have opened up a can of worms. Of course, we could have just allowed gadaffi to slaughter his people.



As ever, it's a no win situation. When we did not intervene early enough in Bosnia many muslims said that we in the West allowed them to die, as a consequence many muslims joined Al Qaeda.



For me, Quarmby is right, Gadaffi is barking mad, and surely the world can tell the difference between a psychopath and an ambitious Leader. There is a world of difference.

hattikins


Joined: 17/02/2008
Posts: 2793

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 11:35

I just wonder were all possible diplomatic attempts to resolve things made before the bombing started and did the UN mandate cover taking Gaddafi out, was that actually discussed or just assumed. While I appreciate that Gaddafi is a tyrant there are still people in Libya who do support him, as there were in Iraq with Saddam, will these people now turn against the West and so increase the threat of terrorist attacks on those who are trying to liberate Libya.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 11:42

Just take the so & so out and tell the world he was a victim of 'friendly fire' - he'll be yesterday's news, eventually, anyway!

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
22/03/2011 12:22

msge 15



I hope so too, however if the international community was going to act, it would have to do so quickly. Of course, not all of the International community was on side. You would not expect autocratic countries like China and Russia to agree. Their political models are probably closer to those of the Middle East, although you didn't hear Egyptians calling for a Russian or Chinese political model (not that I know of) , many have been calling for freedom, hence democracy (or an Islamic model).



You are so right about Gadaffi supporters becoming terroists. This is now likley to happen (although they were already probably anti west in their views). The Rebels could also have become terroists if we did not help them. Mind you, that problem would have been solved if we allowed Gadaffi to kill them all. There would be no potential terroists left and remember many Eastern Libyans (rebels) fought against us in Iraq.