The UK and France want stability and peace more than anything else. They don't want Gaddafi to go just because they've been firing off missiles, they want him gone because him staying is the worst thing for everyone, especially the Libyan people.
What post-Gaddafi government? The rebels are finding it hard enough to organise themselves as it is. And they're not going to spend billions of dollars on fancy European hardware they won't need when they'll have a country to rebuild. The French know that, I'm sure.
All of us want peace and stability in the region, not just in Libya. What makes Libya so different ? If other sovereign countries in the region with closer, more traditonal/established ties had resorted to military action to subdue a rebellion by their people, would France and the U.K. have reacted in the same manner they did over Libya?
Well let's wait and see what happens.... Though things on the ground might not have progressed as fast as the U.K., France and other countries might have hoped, the fact remains that the no fly zone and the ground strikes have benefited the rebels in some way. They may be disorganised, they may still be suffering reversals at the hands of the pro-Gaddafi Libyan forces but the rebels are undeniably in a much better situation now than they were before the strikes.
Or useful intelligence provided to deal with some domestic irritants?
Ok, let's start invasions of China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and every other country with dodgy human rights. The free world versus the unfree world, winner gets to decide the world's political make-up for the next millenium.
Who are you talking to? Who here is saying that they want Gaddafi to stay? My point is, as I have tirelessly pointed out, that Gaddafi cannot stay because he has pledged to massacre civilians he suspects of being or supporting rebels.
I was under the impression that I was talking to you... And the point that I'm trying to make, is if Gadaffi 'cannot' stay as you mentioned it, then the countries that have led the intervention should just say so instead of beating around the bush. Why didn't they say so in the first place prior to the no fly zone being launched?? When the no fly zone started there was no talk of a post Gadaffi Libya but there is now. There was even talk of a partitioned Libya. There was certainly no talk of a ground intervention then - I suspect this was because it was hoped that the no fly zone and strikes would lead to decisive results on the part of the rebels.
.
It's too uncertain whether this is a coincidence. It would also have to be some incredibly good/valuable intel. I doubt intel alone would be enough.
They have said that Gaddafi has to go!
Well yes BUT they didn't before did they??
No, I dont get access to Libyan State T.V. Do you?
If the no fly zone and strikes were enough to topple Gaddafi there would not IMO be talk of arming the rebels and intervening on the ground.
With no-fly zone without ground strikes - not a chance.
You have to be suspicious of "coincidences" of this sort. It is however the kind of thing that any Government would value and it is the kind of Intel that the Saudi's would be well placed to provide. Whether it is the whole deal or just part of a package? guess we will just have to wait and see.
There have been major "successful operations" against insurgents in the North Caucus for years. No doubt many of them are over trumped and over reported. No doubt many of them are real. It's possible you are right, but then in the coming months we should see huge operations with a string of major successes against the various groups. It would take at least that to pay for a favor of that magnitude, especially from a regime that hasn't been Russia's best friend, or client state.
Before when? Before the uprisings started and Gaddafi promised to bathe eastern Libya in blood?!
Allright, here we go again.... When plans about the no fly zone were first circulated and when it was actually carried out, none of the countries that pushed for the no fly zone mentioned anything about regime change. The public impression they gave through numerous statements was that they were willing to see Gaddafi stay in power as long there was a halt in hostilities and a halt in civilian deaths. The emphasis was on preventing attacks on civillians NOT on securing a change of regime. If you have any references that show 'Regime Change' was publicly mentioned at the early stages of the intervention, please provide them and I will gladly admit that I'm mistaken......Before when? Before the uprisings started and Gaddafi promised to bathe eastern Libya in blood?!
Maybe this is one of the rare cases of politicians saying one thing, but actually doing something else..........?