morddwyd 18:56 17 Apr 2011

There seem to be more and more hints about ground troops being needed in Libya (and I don't mean a few special forces operating clandestinely).

Surely they couldn't be that stupid, not for a third time?

I know that Cam has said there will be no invasion, but he's said lots of things.

  sunnystaines 19:17 17 Apr 2011

i hope not

  zzzz999 21:14 17 Apr 2011

It will be our own families getting slaughtered if we 'go in'. We have no place being there and we need to learn from our past mistakes. The French are gung ho, let them put their troops in.

  sunnystaines 21:25 17 Apr 2011

arab league should sort him out or african union

  Forum Editor 22:27 17 Apr 2011

"It's likely that the only way to save a bloodbath will be to put troops in, on the ground."

The way to save a bloodbath is to demoralise Gaddafi's supporters - once senior army officers give up the fight the rest will follow. Then comes the problem - someone has to stop the rebel forces from embarking on an orgy of revenge.

What's needed is a rebel leader, someone who speaks for them, and for the Libyan people. It's a very tall order, and it's looking increasingly like a situation in which - eventually - a peace-keeping presence will be necessary.

A prerequisite for peace is the absence of Gaddafi and his family members. Complicated doesn't begin to describe the problem.

  rickf 23:06 17 Apr 2011

Should'nt have been there in the first place

  rickf 08:46 18 Apr 2011

Perhaps we should not be so omnipotent. We can't solve all the problems in the world when our resources are so depleted. It may seem selfish but "charity does sometimes begin at home." This intervention runs into all sorts of problems. What about Zimbawe where historically we had a direct hand in bringing it about. Again the UK is being accused of self serving interests, particularly oil. I do not claim to have a solution but this intervention is defnitely wrong, perhaps even immoral. There are many parts in the world which are politically probelmatic that we have had a hand in but in these areas we seem to take a back seat. The most immoral stance that the West has taken is that of the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict which we helped to create. If only the West focused it's energy into solving the issues there first it'll have more credibility. Does it not seem that in the present situation as in Iraq the West comes a bit across as a bully whilst claiming to be fair handed.

  Quickbeam 08:55 18 Apr 2011

We'll still be wondering how to get out of a Libyan commitment in ten years time.

  spuds 10:01 18 Apr 2011

When people start talking about creditable leaders, then think no further than Iran for the answers. I seem to recall that France had a little to do with the situation in that part of the world, and what is occuring today!.

Then we seemed to have a UN mandate that was going to restrict ground troops, and a few air strikes would put fear in Gaddafi and his supporters. A few 'friendly fire' incidents, a loss of a plane, lack of support, and it appears to be back to the drawing board.

The first (failed) strike into Iraq, didn't seem to teach the powers in being much?.

  nangadef 18:33 18 Apr 2011

I'm by no means a Gaddafi lover, but the propaganda machine is definitely on the side of the 'rebels'.

How many civilians have they killed in attempting to take control of various towns?

  Forum Editor 18:53 18 Apr 2011

Regardless of all the side issues

It's pretty obvious that Libya cannot and will not progress to full democratic status without a regime change.

The big problem facing the coalition countries is that the UN resolution under which we operate does not mention anything about regime change.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5T review: Hands-on

Illustrator Andrés Lozano on his improv line work, brazen use of colours & hand sketching

iPhone X review

Comment envoyer gratuitement des gros fichiers ?