Would anything of that "end to it" have been acceptable, Gaddafi would have executed hundreds or more in reprisals and then supressed the entire nation again under his control.
Firstly there arent any reports of massacres in the towns that have been restored to control . Secondly as regards executions sovereign governments actually do have the right to execute people for armed treason and colluding with foreign powers . Its not a war crime . What we are dealing with here is an armed campaign closely aligned to western powers and dealing directly with them urging them to intervene in their armed campaign against their government, not unarmed protestors . By any definition that is treason .
Thirdly thousands of people from all over Libya - east and west - have volunteered to fight on the governments behalf . It has not been demonstrated that the rebels have the support of the Libyan people , merely that there was significant unrest in the country which the security forces were unprepared to deal with in the beginning . Ghadaffi though was not reliant on mercenaries as was claimed and neither had his army deserted or defected . He is the legitmate head of state of a sovereign independent country . His government has every right to control it . Unpalatable as that may be to a western audience .
Yes there is uncartainty at the moment. So far the only thing the UNSC Resolution has achieved is the saving of Benghazi and it depends how the powers that be interpret the resolution what happens next. I think in a way the resolution may be too greyly worded, it may not be clear to all exactly what it means.
I dontt think its greyly worded at all . All thats unclear is the failure of the people behind the motion to clearly set out their agenda . It authorises them to take whatever armed actions against the Libyan state they see fit because they want to take all manner of armed acions to either effect regime change or the partition of a sovereign independent state . Those are the only issues they are being unclear on , instead seeking justification in the protection of civilians . Civilians in this case actually being armed combatants whom the Libyan government are not permitted take any action against , including self defense .
The no-fly zone bit is clear, but the "any reasonable measures" or whatever is not. Does it mean for example that the UN Allies now attack Gaddafi positions around Tripoli, and his army in the desert? does it mean that they try to bomb Gaddafi himself? what exactly does it mean?
Its open ended , it means they can do what they want . A free hand . They will now determine Libyas future for it ,or at least attempt to do so by military might . It means war against Libya .
