dagblog - Comments for "Gaddafi may become target of air strikes, Liam Fox admits"

I really detest violence, but

Verified Atheist — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:47:47 +0000

In reply to Personally I do not like the

I really detest violence, but I'd much rather kill one Qaddafi (or two) than hundreds/thousands of his loyalists.

Personally I do not like the

cmaukonen — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:27:31 +0000

Personally I do not like the use of force except as a last resort. However once the decisions has been made to use force then you do what ever needs to be done. And in this case if it means turning Gaddafi's compound to rubble, then so be it.

Like the bully on the pl,ay ground. On you decide you have had enough of him, you don't stop until he is a bloody mess.

Example here, from his own

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:27:07 +0000

In reply to He said that way back on

Example here, from his own direct subordinate, the day after he said that:

British General Sir David Richards, the head of Britain's armed forces, said on Monday that Gaddafi was "absolutely not" a target for military action.

from Europe divided over Libya mission
Divisions arise between coalition carrying out military action and other world powers over UN-sanctioned operation.
Al Jazeera, 21 Mar 2011 20:45

I see that BBC News has even put up a list now of all the conflicting quotes on this from the UK players:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12818062

Also I strongly disagree with your theory about Gaddafi being out of country; I'd be willing to bet that when his son said that Plan A was to live and die in Libya, Plan B was to live and die in Libya and Plan C was to live and die in Libya, that's what his father is going to do. Everything he has done and said to date reinforces that.

He said that way back on

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:10:25 +0000

In reply to Gaddafi may become target of air strikes, Liam Fox admits

He said that way back on Sunday (light years in this context ,) others disagreed afterwards as well, and the US brass on Sunday talk shows clearly disagreeing. And on Monday the coalition had a meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels where they bickered about messaging stuff like that.-- and more importantly, who is going to be in charge after the US bows out. They were at it again today, according to The Guardian's Live Blog for today:

12.48pm: Here's a lunchtime summary:
[....]• Nato officials resume talks in Brussels on whether Nato should command the operation. France says Arab countries do not want the US-led alliance to be in charge.[....]

I intially reacted like--wow this is bad--nobody's in charge, they are all saying different things. But then the more I thought about it, the more I thought in this special situation conflicting public messages may be beneficial, as Gaddafi only knows he can't bs sure what they have decided to do, keeps him guessing as to what counter tactics he should use.