Worried by mission creep and spiralling costs, the Nato-led coalition is suffering a new round of war wobbles over Libya
Share11
Comments (117)
Chris Doyle
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 June 2011 16.30 BST
Article history
The secretary-general of the Arab League Amr Moussa (left), pictured with Muammar Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2010. Photograph: Reuters
Well into month four of military operations in Libya, and we have a new round of jitters over Operation Unified Protector. War wobbles – and it is a war – are a fact of life, not least in multinational coalitions. Some leaders have to pose as tough and uncompromising, others feel they have to show huge concern about civilian casualties, rising costs, mission creep and lack of speedy success.
The challenge is assessing which ones are just playing to a domestic audience and which ones are really genuine. Often enough, those who sound the most cautious are in private the most gung-ho and vice-versa.
The latest round was sparked as a result of Libyan civilian casualties in a Nato attack on 9 June, apparently due to a weapons failure. Many are surprised that there have not been more tragic scenes such as this. The Gaddafi regime, feigning concern over civilian killings, has tried to milk this to the full.
The first doubter is the suave secretary-general of the Arab League and would-be president of Egypt, Amr Moussa. He has had his second bout of the jitters (his first one coming less than 24 hours after the start of military operations in March). This week, in an interview with the Guardian, Moussa stated: "When I see children being killed, I must have misgivings. That's why I warned about the risk of civilian casualties." He went further: "You can't have a decisive ending. Now is the time to do whatever we can to reach a political solution." Just how this is to happen he did not make clear, nor does he appear to have been trying to broker a deal himself.
Arabs and Egyptians that I have spoken to believe Moussa's primary motives are electoral – the political posturing of an ambitious man. As a leading candidate in the Egyptian presidential elections, he has to be acutely aware of the political temperature in his own country. But Moussa was also a key enabler of the Nato operation in Libya. It was he, after all, who helped procure the Arab League decision to call for a no-fly zone, the precursor to UN security council resolution 1973. This Arab League position swayed doubters at the UN including – crucially – Russia and China. Since then, Arab states actually have remained largely supportive, save Algeria and Syria.
Joining Moussa is the Italian foreign minister, Franco Frattini, who called for an "immediate humanitarian suspension of hostilities". This echoed earlier calls by some international aid agencies. Meanwhile, the diminished position of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has made him dependent on coalition partners, not least the Northern League, which opposed the Nato action for fear of a huge wave of North African immigrants. Italy's role is not peripheral – it is the former colonial power in Libya but also host of the key Nato centre of operations.
The other wobbler is the US Congress. Here it is clear that Barack Obama has made little effort to win Congress over and Republicans are trying to embarrass the president for electoral reasons. A senior Libyan opposition source told me that he remained very confident that Obama's support would hold, that Moussa was probably far more in favour of finishing Gaddafi off than he currently sounds and that the Italians would not drop out.
Britain and France remain in the "fight to the bitter end" camp, even though domestically there is lukewarm support for this. The issue here is not so much civilian casualties but spiralling costs. Pressure is intensifying to deliver a swift decisive result.
But while there are doubters, the National Transitional Council in Benghazi has been making some key diplomatic gains. A total of 18 states have now recognised it, including France, Italy and Germany, with many others doing so on an informal level. Crucially, the Chinese government has described the NTC as an "important dialogue partner".
There is fallout from others, not so much over mission creep as what some are referring to as "mission leap". Far from the original no-fly zone that the Arab League called for, it then became a protection operation, but is now all too clearly a regime-change operation. The original wording of resolution 1973 was just about loose enough for the warmongers to interpret it in such a way, though it was clear that most of those voting for it did not understand this, not least Russia and China. Their annoyance has led to a much tougher stance against a resolution on Syria.
But what undermines operations in Libya most is the blurring of political goals. If the political objective is to get rid of Gaddafi, then the military should be allowed do it. Bombing him from on high is risky, endangers civilians, is unlikely to succeed and in the end is far more costly. Some argue that regime change may require forces on the ground to finish the job, but neither Libyans nor Nato allies are at all prepared for that as it stands.
Taking stock at this stage is right. The situation in Libya is not a stalemate, as some suggest, but opposition advances are slow and accomplished at huge cost. Benghazi and Misrata have been largely liberated, as have other areas. Opposition forces are creeping towards Tripoli and Sirte, where they expect Gaddafi's support to implode.
But the constituency that really matters are Libyans themselves. The chasm between Gaddafi and his opponents is so huge it is hard to conceive of a political deal that would satisfy both. Nobody took Saif al-Islam's offer of elections seriously, not least because it did not come from the lips of his father. Critics of Nato operations among Gaddafi opponents are legion, but usually they complain that Nato is not doing enough. They want arms, they want more training, more bombing and increasingly more funding.
There still is a sense of resolute determination that eventually they will get their man and have a free Libya. If so, will this come soon enough for their Nato protectors and other allies?
***
Comments in chronological order (Total 117 comments)
PercyBS
23 June 2011 4:40PM
Isn't life amazing.
We are fighting an illegal, imoral, unethical, undeclared war and that worries none of our leaders.
The cost on the other hand . . . .
PaulfromYorkshire
23 June 2011 4:44PM
Clegg has called the Iraq war "illegal" in the House. What does he think of this one?
urbanegorrila
23 June 2011 4:44PM
Air supremacy only offers so much and over-bombing continually represents an ever-present danger to cvililians.
If people really believe that Libya urgently needs to be rescued from Gaddafi then I would recommend they advocate that politicians put the current half-baked strategies aside and come up something that will be genuinely effective.
Otherwise "Carry-On Bombing" will continue to be a farce.
BrianWhit
23 June 2011 4:45PM
We are fighting an illegal, imoral, unethical, undeclared war and that worries none of our leaders.
PercyBS: You can call it many things, but "illegal" is not one of them. The UN resolution authorised "all necessary means".
billysbar
23 June 2011 4:46PM
Did I miss the policy shift from protecting civilians to regime change(and maybe kill a few civilians)? I must admit i missed the news last night.
PercyBS
23 June 2011 4:48PM
BrianWhit
23 June 2011 4:45PM
We are fighting an illegal, imoral, unethical, undeclared war and that worries none of our leaders.
PercyBS: You can call it many things, but "illegal" is not one of them. The UN resolution authorised "all necessary means".
All necessary means to do what? Did it include this regime change?
PercyBS
23 June 2011 4:49PM
PaulfromYorkshire
23 June 2011 4:44PM
Clegg has called the Iraq war "illegal" in the House. What does he think of this one?
Ask him in ten years
TomLars
23 June 2011 4:50PM
Hopefully it's not money or doubt that destroy the coalition but common sense.
The best way to save lives in this conflict is to support a ceasefire, an AU or UN peacekeepers mission, and get the 2 factions to negociate their way toward an elections. Gadhafi already proposed an internationally supervised elections. We should let Libyan people decides if they want Gadhafi in power or some no names rebels with guns.
Strummered
23 June 2011 4:51PM
This whole mission was at the behest of Cameron and Sarkozy, both vainglorious political lightweights......what could possibly go wrong?
Exodus20
23 June 2011 4:52PM
Why rich European countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein are never worried about tyrant, dictators, human rights and never, never get involved militarily or financially?
Why always us? Another £250m cuts to come, all under the slogan of AUSTERITY, whose austerity?
exArmy
23 June 2011 4:54PM
Exodus20
wrote
"Why always us?"
Cos we like to big it on the world stage init
TomLars
23 June 2011 4:54PM
Libyan people needs peacemakers not warmakers.
Hooray
23 June 2011 4:55PM
BrianWhit:
You can call it many things, but "illegal" is not one of them. The UN resolution authorised "all necessary means".
... to protect civilians. Conducting regime change would be illegal, which is being pursued. However, there is little international appetite to charge it as such because Gadhafi hasn't got many friends. There are a few left.
How Algeria moves will prove pretty decisive from a supply perspective.
GushingGuss
23 June 2011 5:02PM
The latest round was sparked as a result of Libyan civilian casualties in a Nato attack on 9 June, apparently due to a weapons failure. Many are surprised that there have not been more tragic scenes such as this. The Gaddafi regime, feigning concern over civilian killings, has tried to milk this to the full.
Unlike most other Islamic regimes which suffer similar accidents and keep a tight lip. (Cough. Cough again).
DuchessOfMalfi
23 June 2011 5:02PM
I have to resist the urge to smirk. Cameron has made the same tactical error - with Clegg acting as his LibDem dupe - that his role model Blair made over Iraq. Cameron hoped to gain political kudos from Libya because it was seen initially as a risk free action with support from the public,UN and the Arab League. How mistaken he was.
Like Blair it won't be his political graveyard, be it will add to the damaging impression, when added to all the u-turns, that Cameron is a lightweight, as Obama noted, who as a PR man and second hand Porsche car salesman makes up policy on the hoof and got lucky in the begining.
Next week supported by his pet hamster Clegg, Cameron borrows an aircraft carrier from Airfix and invades Scotland.
LiuShaoqi
23 June 2011 5:06PM
NATO will do whatever it takes to protect civilians from the evil of Gaddafi, even if that means killing them.
The mindset has not changed since Vietnam remember what US Army major Phil Cannella said after the battle for Ben Tre.
"'It became necessary to destroy the town, in order to save it,'"
I fear the same now applies to Tripoli
cactuswizzard
23 June 2011 5:08PM
the whole point of this is not to get rid of Gaddafi and then the problem is resolved, although reading many articles on this subject one could get the impression that that will be it in many peoples mind
Remember Bush famous mission accomplished , that's when the problems really started, so if this has cost Briton 200 million sofar and we have Gaddafi in a fighting to the end mood.........and no real clear opposition........
So we have achieved nothing and what happens once Gaddafi is gone
we cant just pull out and be done I don't think Cameron has that in mind after all he will want some Oil and arms deals from a new government
And setting that up in Libya may take a while and no doubt require more support from the allied governments so I believe the 200 million spent so far is just small change ......if it ends up like Afghanistan it could take us years to get out...........maybe by the next election.......
DaveAboard
23 June 2011 5:12PM
I commented on another thread a few days ago about my doubts on the role of the Arab League in this military intervention:
"I am far more suspicious of the role and participation of the Arab League who were right behind this from the outset and who I suspect have a far more sinister motive and appear to be up to equally repressive shenanigans of their own. This, then,has the knock-on effect of throwing the western nations' motives into question"
Well, that's what I wrote and, as if on cue, Amr Moussa decides that he would really prefer a "political solution". I fear that Nato members, in their gung-ho quest to buy influence in the Arab World, to secure pro-western rulers and, God forbid we should mention it, secure oil supplies have been led well and truly up the garden path by this gentleman and his so-called Arab League. I suspect the League's motive was as much to deflect attention from the repression going on in Saudi and Bahrain as it was to protect citizens of Libya. Mr Moussa has finally been exposed as the hypocrite he has always been. He seems remarkably quiet on the military kangaroo courts which have been established to mete out justice in Egypt. It is wholly shameful that, to further his own political ambitions, he would now abandon the Libyan people to the virtually assured slaughter by Gadaffi's hired mobsters.
One has to hope that the reason Liam Fox didn't show his face at the despatch box this afternoon is that he was busy writing out an £260m invoice addressed to the Arab League for "Services Rendered".
OneWorldGovernment
23 June 2011 5:14PM
The country is reverting back to it's historical form before the Italians invaded (Cyrenaica, Tripoli, etc.) The end of this needless intervention will be the splitting of the country unless another strongmen is installed to rule this artificial creation. The people fighting in the mountains in Western Libya and the people fighting in Eastern Libya are only united by their wish to rid themselves of Gaddafi.
mismeasure
23 June 2011 5:18PM
Lacking a quorum, the Arab League called for a no-fly zone. The UNSC-- with 5 absentions, fully a third of member nations-- approved intervention:
"...to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory...."
It's obvious that what is happening in Libya goes well beyond this authorization and is based on very shaky grounds. Once the bombing had begun the "rebels" flatly refused an effort by the African Union to impose a ceasefire as a prelude to negotiating some kind of settlement.
The rebels are betting that they will be able to convince NATO nations-- who have their own set of objectives and motivations, not least of which concerns what form the marketing of natural resources will take-- to continue to act as indispensable proxies in their effort to overthrow the Gaddafi government. That they absolutely depend on this military firepower seems to indicate that this is not a popular revolution.
Nerale
23 June 2011 5:20PM
France and England those old crusaders can't actually invade Libya for fear of united Arab opposition yet without invasion there are no spoils. The spoils of war in this case are created by using state money to smash everything up (bomb to smithereens) then sell the new goverment, or the old, it doesn't matter, some new stuff.
And who pays? Yes you guessed it the taxpayers. The destruction of Libya is a capitalist crusade, the same old story.
Bertrand50
23 June 2011 5:20PM
@BrianWhit
Is it not a little cynical to assume that all means necessary entails:
- refusing ceasefire options
- bombing civilians
- insisting on regime change
- killing immediate family members of Gaddafi
- possible use of illegal munitions
- aiding and abetting one side in a civil war.
I appreciate you're an apologist for "muscular liberalism" or whatever euphemistic BS its now termed but where would you draw the line? Nuking Tripoli to help Libya?
Whoopsydoo
23 June 2011 5:25PM
"Benghazi and Misrata have been largely liberated"
BS! What do you mean 'liberated'? Next your going to tell us these al-Qaeda speckled, Islamic Fundamentalist rebels from Benghazi waging jihad against the government of Libya are going to give the people democracy. Give me a break.
Operation Unified Protector my arse.
Operation Unified Proctologist
GushingGuss
23 June 2011 5:26PM
Bertrand50
- refusing ceasefire options
- bombing civilians
- insisting on regime change
- killing immediate family members of Gaddafi
- possible use of illegal munitions
- aiding and abetting one side in a civil war.
I appreciate you're an apologist for "muscular liberalism" or whatever euphemistic BS its now termed but where would you draw the line? Nuking Tripoli to help Libya?
Oh dear. I don't think that you should be describing other peoples opinions as BS.
happytolive
23 June 2011 5:29PM
Nobody tells the dictators in the West that it is none of your goddamn business. Their military might does not justify bombing Libya. The rebels’ future would be like Karzai as its best, not Maliki. And that is the difference. Maliki was created because of the lack of support for Saddam and the direct occupation by the foreign forces. If Afghanistan has come to a point of defeat, why do these leaders think the war in Libya is any different?
Whatever happens something is clear: people in Libya and the West take the burden and the false glory goes to the leaders and easy money to weapon manufacturers/dealers, oil companies and their beneficiaries.
edwardrice
23 June 2011 5:33PM
BrianWhit
@PercyBS: You can call it many things, but "illegal" is not one of them. The UN resolution authorised "all necessary means".
"all necessary means" does not mean regime change.
"all necessary means" does not mean terrorise the population of Tripoli.
The endless bombing of Tripoli by Nato cannot be anything other than an attempt to kill Gaddafi.
As you know,
1973 ''1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire ...''
Perhaps 1973 demands "all necessary means" for the ''immediate establishment of a cease-fire''.
DrainingFaces
23 June 2011 5:36PM
Cameroon and Sark are mad for Gaddafi's blood and no amount of dead Libyan children or destroyed infrastructure will alleviate their thirst for it.
They plonked their willies on the table and said he has to go and this war won't end until either Gaddafi is successfully assassinated, or some bright spark gets a political cleaver.
fripouille
23 June 2011 5:39PM
BrianWhit
You can call it many things, but "illegal" is not one of them. The UN resolution authorised "all necessary means".
I, like you, have supported the Resolution since the start, but are you seriously suggesting that there has been no mission creep? Isn't declaring that Gaddafi must go before the campaign stops an example of mission creep? After all, the resolution does not authorise the campaign to continue until he is either dead or out of the country as far as I am aware. I for one am very worried about this aspect of the conflict....
edwardrice
23 June 2011 5:43PM
Nerale
The destruction of Libya is a capitalist crusade...
Gaddafi wasn't playing. He has to go.
GeraldArds
23 June 2011 5:45PM
Did the UN resolution realy allow for NATO to become an extension of the resistance army in Libya ?
Surely not.
Protect civilain casualtys ? Was that not it ?
happytolive
23 June 2011 5:48PM
It is really sad to live in a world controlled by people like Obama and Cameron. These people cannot even manage a percentage of the political turmoil like in the ME. They inherit a bankrupt political and economic system the members of which are relying on the silence of the masses and total obedience of their servants in the governments. If the political crisis in Greece and Spain develops further and reaches the rest of Europe, then we will see the extent to which these leaders can withstand the political blows and attacks of dissent. Up to now all calculations and analyses are made based on the absence of the masses. Think if they enter the real politics then everything must be rewritten including repressive laws and regulations. Bring back the big gun, the people.
DrainingFaces
23 June 2011 5:49PM
The West is saving Libya by terrorizing it with depleted uranium munitions, embargoing Tripoli to the point where it's facing shortages in basic supplies, and refusing ceasefire arrangements to let humanitarian aid in?? And this is helping civilians in Libya how exactly?
But don't worry folks, Gaddafi has no support and he'll be gone real soon, just you wait. Also, our 2,000 lb Paveway 3 bombs are awesome and Gaddafi is like really evil. Bye. Oh and, don't forget to watch the BBC and CNN tonight to hear about how well THE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION is going.
worried
23 June 2011 5:50PM
First point ...again. This is not a war.
Second point , following on from someone else:
" if C and S put their willies on the table and one of them has a cleaver " ...please, parliaments, take it away before they seriously injure themselves."
donafugata
23 June 2011 5:52PM
The response-time to problem spots around the world seems to be getting shorter and the justification for military intervetion more casual.
Can we just learn to stop interferring and allow people to sort out their problems of which we know nothing. The countries would be better off without us, our reputation globally would be better for it, the health of our armed forces would improve as would our domestic finances. The savings could be used to compensate for government spending cuts.
Same thing goes for the U.S. Congressman Walter Jones, don't go giving it all away in tax-breaks for the well-off!
maxyf
23 June 2011 5:53PM
This article sounds like a Blair Mark 2 diatribe. The author is mistaken in believing that the 1973 authorises regime change. Where is the independent evidence that the NTC will be any better or worse than Ghadaffi. We are hearing already examples of human rights abuses by the rebels and NTC in not only Misurata but also Benghazi. The widepread support that the NTC in Benghazi claims is by no means widepread. Let us not forget too that many members of the NTC are ex members of the Ghadaffi regime.
We were told in the beginning that the war would last week not months. Now were being told that it is an open ended conflict. Clost to 250 million pounds has been spent on a war while we are constantly being told that the country is broke by Cameron et
maxyf
23 June 2011 5:55PM
I fail to see how carrying out an extensive bombing campaign will produce a democracy at the end of it. Cameron is clearly out of his depth.
maxyf
23 June 2011 5:59PM
If regime change is illegal under international law then the ALL NECESSARY MEANS clause in the 1973 resolution does not authorise regime change. Clearly the NATO bombing campaign has exceded the terms of the UN resolution.
maxyf
23 June 2011 6:01PM
If the rebels have the support you claim, the Ghadaffi regime would have imploded long ago. Having virtually destroyed the country and sowed the seeds of widespread Arab opposition to the NATO bombing, a ceasefire is what is needed.
okilydokily
23 June 2011 6:04PM
NATO has been incredibly effective at avoiding civilian casualties thus far but you wouldn't know it from the comments on this page. Compare this to the civilian casualties caused by Gaddafi whose forces kill indiscriminately.
Of course there are wobbles in the coalition, people thought that the people of Tripoli would rise up against Gaddafi but they haven't, therefore people are worried. What is certain is that there is no going back on this and we must back the rebels.
I have no truck with the orientalists who assume anyone from the ME with a beard is an Al Qaeda 'tu'r'rist' on a mission to establish a caliphate in Weston-Super-Mare.
moretheylie
23 June 2011 6:06PM
What else do you need to know about the (illegal) cameron war (ref: pmq's)
A team of 130 British and French agents are reportedly on a one-million-pound-a-week, do-or-die deep undercover mission in Libya to get Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The British security service MI6 and France's Directorate-General for External Security agents will hunt for the dictator in Operation Fire And Forget, the Daily Star reports.
According to a senior security source, these agents are personally sanctioned by UK PM David Cameron and French President Sarkozy, the paper said.
Members of the team speak the language, have lived in the country for years, and have made good contacts or landed jobs in key areas.
"These agents are very brave people. If they get caught they will disappear and won't survive an hour," the paper quoted the senior security source, as saying.
Money is no object and the operation could cost an estimated one million pounds a week, the source added.
moretheylie
23 June 2011 6:07PM
NATO has been incredibly effective at avoiding civilian casualties thus far but you wouldn't know it from the comments on this page
you base this on what evidence?
edwardrice
23 June 2011 6:11PM
The situation in Libya is not a stalemate, as some suggest, but opposition advances are slow and accomplished at huge cost. Benghazi and Misrata have been largely liberated, as have other areas. Opposition forces are creeping towards Tripoli and Sirte, where they expect Gaddafi's support to implode.
Benghazi and Misrata ''have been largely liberated, as have other areas''.
I thought, from news reports, Benghazi was under the control of the rebels.
I assume ''liberated'' means rebel controlled.
Now I read Benghazi is ''largely liberated'' .
moretheylie
23 June 2011 6:12PM
in case you missed this :
“Rebels” are power-hungry terrorists, say Libyan refugees
- link
Salma’s brother Sabri, a surgeon, has also fled the city. He says they have made three attempts on his life, but he only left when he saw a killing.
“They took him from the ICU and killed him in front of the ICU and hanged his body on the wall of the hospital,” he said, describing what happened to one of the patients.
The doctor says the people from the National Transitional Council were behind it – the rebels’ official political body formed after the revolution in Libya started in mid-February. Its members are recognized by many countries throughout the world as the only legitimate representatives of Libya.
“There is no opinion other than their opinion. You are either with them or against them. They talk about freedom and democracy but there is no freedom and democracy. They just want the power,” doctor Sabri explains.
okilydokily
23 June 2011 6:16PM
@moretheylie
The evidence is that thus far Gaddafi has been unable to take journalists on regular guided tours to see civilian casualties or perhaps you think the regime avoids publicising civilian casualties out of respect for the dead.
NATO is relying on an uprising in Tripoli, without one the mission fails, and there is no incentive for them to do anything that delays or even stops any uprising.
edwardrice
23 June 2011 6:18PM
maxyf
I fail to see how carrying out an extensive bombing campaign will produce a democracy at the end of it. Cameron is clearly out of his depth.
I'm sure Cameron is 'out of his depth' but he will be rewarded for his efforts.
He understands Gaddafi has to go.
UncleVanya
23 June 2011 6:20PM
Can it be the 'OIL'? Of course not, ha! ha!. Can it be 'Nation Building' and the 'Search for Democracy' by leaving no 'Stone, Brick or Doorway unturned!'. What next, the Pentagon planning to move Boots on the Ground into Libya perchance? And what of of Mr Call-Me-Dave? Maybe volunteering the UK's Military as Peacekeepers? Of course, all has already been denied, but why should anyone believe our Political Master either side of the Atlantic?
Maybe I'm being a tad paranoid about all this, and getting too much like old Victor Meldrew.
kendrew
23 June 2011 6:20PM
Why is it that politicians are unwilling to learn the lessons of history; fucking naive question.
Backing the good guys was always fraught with danger; Afghanistan went tits up after the Russians were worn down and 9/11 and ten years later we are still beating our collective heads against a very hard mud packed wall.
As far back as the Bay of Pigs the US doesnt have a very impressive track record on backing a sure thing. I love the notion of a free Libya; fuck I love the notion of a free anywhere but in the middle east I am not holding my breath.
Time was when the world went on it merry weary way and accepted that there are times when letting the locals remain center stage as the main protagonists is perhaps the way forward. Again naive because oil is, was, and will remain at the center and the sham of democracy is nothing but a very poor veil.
Lawrence knew but was ignored; 'Better the Arabs do it tolerably than you do it perfectly'. Well the 'perfectly' option is and always was dead in the water if left to the west. Iraq is still far from over even though some think the fat lady has sung.
We the rest and the US are not good at this; full scale and up against a worthy adversary perhaps we stand more of a chance. Difficult to convince those keeping the home fires burning when they have the morgage and the new tyre for the car to think about.
moretheylie
23 June 2011 6:23PM
PercyBS: You can call it many things, but "illegal" is not one of them. The UN resolution authorised "all necessary means".
the un didnt sanction war, it sanctioned something very different.
the truth is that camerons intervention has resulted in far more deaths just by the mere fact that it has prolonged conflict with ever widening targets .
okilydokily
23 June 2011 6:24PM
@moretheylie
You would no better than reference the Daily Star (assuming you mean the UK one). But I would hope the UK and France do have specialists/ spys on the ground as it would be a deriliction of duty if they didn't.
Russia Today - hmm - I trust them no more than I would trust Fox, News of the World, Press TV or Jeff Rense, but it would be an incredible shock if an untrained rebel army didn't commit a few crimes along the way when you consider the crimes of the Allied Armies (UK, US and Soviet) in WWII.
okilydokily
23 June 2011 6:25PM
@ moretheylie
the truth is that camerons intervention has resulted in far more deaths just by the mere fact that it has prolonged conflict with ever widening targets .
On what evidence do you base this?
______________
Các anh chị có ý kiến gì về bài viết "Libya: will doubts destroy the coalition?" ?
Đây là một trong những bài được xếp vào "Article history", có nhiều ý kiến, phê bình, xin được gởi vào đây một số trong rất nhiều ý kiến , phê bình của người đọc cho các anh chị cùng đọc và thảo luận, từ đó có thể rút tỉa thêm được những kinh nghiệm, học hỏi, góp nhặt thêm sự hiểu biết cũng như kiến thức khi tìm hiểu về cuộc chiến Libya hay những vấn đề khác đã và đang xảy ra trên thế giới .
Nhất là những người VN bị MẤT NƯỚC vào tay bè lũ phản quốc CƯỚP NƯỚC diệt chủng BÁN NƯỚC ĐỘC tài ĐỘC đảng csVN;
Những người VN vẫn còn tiếp tục tranh đấu để GIÀNH lại giang sơn của Tổ Tiên Việt đã mấy ngàn năm, đã và đang bị hủy diệt trong tay của lũ súc sinh phản quốc BÁN NƯỚC csVN học thêm những kinh nghiệm gì từ cuộc chiến Libya và thái độ của thế giới liên quan đến cuộc chiến này ???
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
24062011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment