Air strikes continue, U.S. jet crashes

B92, why don't you report this is a battle for oil and not civilians? If this was about protecting civilian lives then why resort to violence and aggression, that ends up killing innocent civilians? Shouldn't effort be put into peace talks, ceasefires and so on?

This should be about protecting the will of the Libyan people but unfortunately this country is cursed by having large oil reserves.

You are right on the money again Zoran!! The "coalition of the willing" is using the pesky little fact of innocent people being slaughtered to once again take over oil fields (because thats what the west does...according to evil dictators sitting on oil fields that don't want to lose their power)! Instead of using aggression to stop the murdering they should have planted trees along the streets of Tripoli! That would have put Gadaffi in his place!! Instead of bombing government tanks they should have put more effort into peace talks because we all know how well reasonable dialogue works when dealing with dictators!

"It's probably more about using up their stockpile of uranium depleted munitions."

- I knew it!!! Thank you for exposing the truth!!! I knew that America was planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya to dispose of depleted uranium! How could I not see it!! Do you think they planned this before the military set off that Tsunami in Japan (think about that one!)???

I cant believe that B92 is not setting the record straight and reporting this as a battle for oil!! Can you believe they are quoting from BBC (was the New York Times or the Financial Times not available?!?). Can you get with it and start quoting sources that are exposing the truth (e.g. random America hating bloggers that have an ax to grind and always seem to expose the truth like 9/11 being an inside job or that Russia traded Libya for Kosovo)???

I have to go now because the tinfoil antenna I have on my roof seems to have finally made contact with aliens!!!!!

you are so right!

So by your logic, America will now spends Billions of dollars to help Libya out of good will.

By chance, you don't happen to believe in the tooth fairy do you?

B92, why don't you report this is a battle for oil and not civilians? If this was about protecting civilian lives then why resort to violence and aggression, that ends up killing innocent civilians? Shouldn't effort be put into peace talks, ceasefires and so on?

This should be about protecting the will of the Libyan people but unfortunately this country is cursed by having large oil reserves.
(Zoran, 22 March 2011 09:53)
Libya controls some of the worlds oil but not enough for a war. Besides oil continued to flow with Gaddafi in power, a war only hampers that flow and probably for months if not years.
True talk of ceasefires are good but some do not listen, Gaddafi just like Milosevic just turn a deaf ear to such calls, and while everyone else is talking people are dying. So do you wait until all the opposition is dead before anyone intervenes? I am sure that is what you wished in the case of Kosovo.

Zoran,

A more credible analysis of the entire situation in Libya:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132093458329910.html

I have no love for Qaddafi and I hoped he would have been deposed weeks ago. I still hope his regime crumbles at the hands of the rebels, but the nature in which the international community responded here while simultaneoulsly giving little to no attention to Yemen and Bahrain adds to the hyporcrisy this is solely a humanitarian intervention. Particularly since the effort seems to be halting Qaddafi's advance on Benghazi; not removing Qaddafi's regime.

B92, why don't you report this is a battle for oil and not civilians? If this was about protecting civilian lives then why resort to violence and aggression, that ends up killing innocent civilians? Shouldn't effort be put into peace talks, ceasefires and so on?

This should be about protecting the will of the Libyan people but unfortunately this country is cursed by having large oil reserves.
(Zoran, 22 March 2011 09:53)

The intervention (not war) is about protecting civilian lives and in the long run probably oil. Thanks to the coalition intervention less civilians are dying than had Gadaffi taken the East of Libya, where there would be a massive backlash with lots of revenge killing probably in triple figures. If Gadaffi bombs civilian populated areas then the Coalition will " use all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" per UNSCR 1973.

Gadaffi is currently shelling Misurata, which is against the ceasefire and thus against UNSCR 1973; therefore because civilians in the civilian populated area of Misurata are at risk and because Gadaffi is violating the ceasefire (all of which is against UNSCR 1973) I hope the Coalition bombs the hell out of Gadaffi's forces.


Also to report it as a "War for Oil" will be extremely poor journalism. It would be extremely biased. It would be very subjective instead of objective. I don't think B92 wants any of this to be associated with them. The coalition forces are participating in a UN mission and they will most likely at a later date be buying oil from Libya, however that is up for the authorities in Libya to decide.

Zoran

It's probably more about using up their stockpile of uranium depleted munitions.

It is strange that NATO's primary approach to peace is to go bomb the crap out of civilian infrastructure.

There is no doubt that the Libyan people will suffer more after the bombings.

Boris

What would your view on this entire matter be if the following were true?

NATO is truly dropping uranium depleted bombs on Libya.

Would that make you stance correct, in that America truly cares to save the lives of Libyans.

Once again, I see that conmpatriots living in Serbia or in Canada still professed their anti-western propaganda. The coalition was permitted only for the purpose of saving human lifes and not protecting oil pipelines. As Ghadafi, I observe that you dont see the differece.

Had the french aircraft not acted on time, Bengasi would have been the second night of San Bartolomeo..

"Officially it is a humanitarian mission, not a war for oil or regime chance; however I reckon the West will end up getting oil and there will be regime change. Also lives will be saved, imagine if the Coalition had not intervened and Gadaffi had crushed the Rebels in the East. Gadaffi would order a massive backlash, there would be revenge killing probably numbering into six figures. If Gadaffi had taken the East thousands of people would have been murdered by Gadaffi's forces." (Ian UK)

-- I basically agree with this assessment. No doubt the immediate effect of an international response against Qaddafi is the saving of possibly thousands of lives that would have been lost - on both sides - had a battle for Benghazi taken place. For that, the US, France, and Great Britain deserve credit. But I still have to think that this "humanitarian" decision is closely associated with staving off a number of more long-term instabilities:

a) Massive amount of refugees flooding into a transitioning Egypt and Tunisia, not to mention Italy, France, and Malta

b) Qaddafi resorting to a "scorched earth" policy if he knew he was going down (thus the "oil" argument - it's not that we want to "steal" the oil so much as we want to keep him from setting it afire)

c) Making a protracted conflict double the resolve of authoritarian leaderships in the region to clamp down on protesters and reformists - worse than Bahrain.

So yes, there is clearly a humanitarian reason and I'm quite sure the people of Benghazi are grateful. But again, this is linked with geostrategic reasons the West has. Were this in central Africa, or the Gulf, little attention would be paid.

And I'm not optimistic the West will really make good on their pledge to get rid of Qaddafi. There's no credible political alternative in Libya. And you'd have to get rid of his entire family since removing the father will only enthrone the son. I wouldn't be surprised if this results in a protracted stalemate - at least until some credible alternative goverment can take the reigns in Tripoli. And from the looks of it, that may be far off.

The intervention (not war) is about protecting civilian lives and in the long run probably oil. Thanks to the coalition intervention less civilians are dying than had Gadaffi taken the East of Libya, where there would be a massive backlash with lots of revenge killing probably in triple figures. If Gadaffi bombs civilian populated areas then the Coalition will " use all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" per UNSCR 1973.

Gadaffi is currently shelling Misurata, which is against the ceasefire and thus against UNSCR 1973; therefore because civilians in the civilian populated area of Misurata are at risk and because Gadaffi is violating the ceasefire (all of which is against UNSCR 1973) I hope the Coalition bombs the hell out of Gadaffi's forces.


Also to report it as a "War for Oil" will be extremely poor journalism. It would be extremely biased. It would be very subjective instead of objective. I don't think B92 wants any of this to be associated with them. The coalition forces are participating in a UN mission and they will most likely at a later date be buying oil from Libya, however that is up for the authorities in Libya to decide.
(Ian, UK, 22 March 2011 17:46)

RE: UN resolution 1923

The Coalition allies including the UK and France have gone far beyone UN resolution 1923 and are now the air force of the rebels.

The most recent precedent was when the no fly zone was implemented in Iraq, however the western backed coalition back then did not directly attack the Iraqi army. The current coalition is bent on destroying Libya , dismantling the current Gaddafi leadership with the so called rebels who are inflicting civilian casualties as well. This war is a civil war, an internal conflict that the UK and France have interfered over oil, nothing more, nothing less.

Humanitarian reasons? Do you actually believe that? If this exercise was for humanitarian reasons, than the UN would have sent obvservors and then a UN peacekeeping force to seperate the parties.

NATO was not sent for a peacekeeping mission, but has an aggressive invader.

Gadaffi is shelling Misurata? The rebels are launching attacks against Ajdabiya with NATO air support. Is this a humanitarian mission? Is this not an aggressive attack on the civilians of this city?

This is not humanitariasm, it's the French and English participating in a civil war and revolution and violating the territorial integrity of Libya.

Less civilians are dying!! Only if you continue to watch CNN and BBC!! More civilans are dead and more will be dying because of the British and French intevention.

Why would it be extremely subjective and bad journalistic taste to write that this is War for Oil? That is exactly what it is , why is it subjective to print the truth? Are you really that blind or really that stupid to believe otherwise.

(Ian, UK, 22 March 2011 17:46)

There have been very interesting conversions taking place behind closed doors of financial institutions – how is this new conflict going to be paid?

The answer that arose within one group meeting session was that the UK will have to tighten its belt further by closing additional social programs and cutting more jobs in Government. At present it is about 400 000 civil servants and it would have been a total of 650 000 if necessary. The revised agenda will be 650 000 to 700 000 in the first instance followed up to 1 million if the initial cuts are insufficient.

The revised agenda was only based on this war going for 2 weeks and a land invasion was not taken into account – you can almost double those figures if that occurs.

This aerial bombardment is limiting in itself because it has not stopped Gaddafi at all but only slowed him down so the next option is a ground invasion force followed by Al Qaida coming in and you will have an Iraqi-style mess. When you compare export of oil from Iraq prior to and after the invasion it is less than ¼ and the same will happen in Libya. What you will have is suicide bombings, oil pipelines sabotaged and more and more refugees coming to the UE.

Look at Iraq, after all that fighting to “free” the people from a dictator, which the west installed back in the 1970s, coalition forces have become helpless, trapped behind their own forts and unable to even go out on patrol without casualties. The Iraqi government has awarded most of the major contract to either Chinese or Russian companies with very little to the west.

What was their purpose for the invasion of Iraq?

1. weapons of mass destruction
2. Saddam working with Al Qaida
3. bringing democracy to the entire middle east

Now its more like operation tail between their legs and looking for an exit strategy.

Are you really that blind or really that stupid to believe otherwise.
(Jugoslavija, 22 March 2011 20:23)
--
Don't be too concerned about Ian. He believes the BBC isn't biased, that the UK, US, France and Italy really care about the civilians in Libya and this really isn't about oil (for now), that the aggression pact is part of a UN mission and the best way to protect civilians is to bomb a country and its infrastructure.

At the start of the Libya aggression, Obama was taking questions from reporters in Chile. He was asked by local news people whether he would apologize for americas role in the bloody turmoil in Chile decades earlier and americas support for a murdering dicatator named pinochet. No apology came.

A few hours ago Obama was in El Salvador taking questions about Libya. Will the local news people ask him to apologize for americas support for murdering death squads in El Salvadors civil war?

gadhafi shooting civilans? what civilans?I only see people with aks and rpgs!how about ray gun ronnie blowing omars little girl to bitswhile she was at a peace rally with missle strike!GO OMAR!!!

"Once again, I see that conmpatriots living in Serbia or in Canada still professed their anti-western propaganda"
Boris

Anti-western propaganda is their life-motive.What they don't realize is that they have absolutely no influence, nothing, nada, nichts, rien, nista, semmi on those world events.

''gadhafi shooting civilans? what civilans?I only see people with aks and rpgs!how about ray gun ronnie blowing omars little girl to bitswhile she was at a peace rally with missle strike!GO OMAR!!!
(george miletich, 23 March 2011 00:22) ''

4 weeks ago, gedafi bombed 250 [unarmed] protesters ...you don't have to be a rocket sciencist to understand why libyan people picked up ak-s and rpgs against gedafi right after that event... if a dictator understands force as the only means of solution, that's what will solve the issue...more brutal force.

(Jugoslavija, 22 March 2011 20:23)

First off, UNSCR 1923 is about Chad and the Central African Republic not Libya. What you mean is UNSCR 1973.

Everything that Coalition have done is in line with UNSCR 1973. Cameron was very very very smart when he drew up UNSCR 1973, he has tricked BRIC into accepting it. The most important line in the resolution is "authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" which permits the Coalition to attack Pro-Gadaffi forces if they shell towns and cities inhabited by civilians. BRIC were tricked into accepting that sentence.

Officially it is a humanitarian mission, not a war for oil or regime chance; however I reckon the West will end up getting oil and there will be regime change. Also lives will be saved, imagine if the Coalition had not intervened and Gadaffi had crushed the Rebels in the East. Gadaffi would order a massive backlash, there would be revenge killing probably numbering into six figures. If Gadaffi had taken the East thousands of people would have been murdered by Gadaffi's forces.

This Coalition intervention is the lesser of two evils. No reliable source has reported civilian casualties caused by the Coalition yet. If a few civilians accidentally do get killed it is not as bad as letting Gadaffi murder civilians in the thousands which he would of done had he taken the east. The lesser of two evils.

Also stop this whole BBC/ CNN argument and that Westerners are brainwashed. If you have noticed I read B92 for an alternative view. Media in Serbia can be as biased as Western media and most of the time it is. Serbian media is hardly brilliant when it comes to neutrality. You lot are all brainwashed by Serbian propaganda. It can work both ways. Then have a look at Russian and Chinese media, that is extremely biased. Then look at how their journalists are treated. It is disgusting!

Why shouldn't B92 report it as a War for Oil? Because that is an opinion, it is an analysis. It isn't fact even though it may have some elements of truth in the long run. If B92 were to report it as a war for oil, it would make it into a "Propaganda Machine".

There are many many reasons as to why the Coalition have intervened in Libya. Oil is just one of the reasons. Other reasons are because UNSCR 1973 said so, to get regime change, to promote democracy, to boost support for politicians (a short fast victorious war is always good for popular support of politicians), humanitarians reasons etc, get a thorn out of their side, vengeance for Lockerbie, to stop mass murder of innocent civilians etc. I could go on forever.

@Boris J, Joe and all the other

don´t be naive, boys.

if the US are only helping to save lives of innocent civilians, why do they turn a blind eye to the fact that small arms are being delivered from Egypt?

you think that the US have nothing to do with that, right? =)

and, another question for you smarties: why do the US not act against the violent crackdown on the poeple in Bahrain, if it is human rights they are protecting?

they are of course not staying quiet only because they got their 5th fleet over there in Manama, right?

I am just curious to read your answers...

B92, why don't you report this is a battle for oil and not civilians? If this was about protecting civilian lives then why resort to violence and aggression, that ends up killing innocent civilians? Shouldn't effort be put into peace talks, ceasefires and so on?

This should be about protecting the will of the Libyan people but unfortunately this country is cursed by having large oil reserves.

Boris

What would your view on this entire matter be if the following were true?

NATO is truly dropping uranium depleted bombs on Libya.

Would that make you stance correct, in that America truly cares to save the lives of Libyans.

Zoran,

A more credible analysis of the entire situation in Libya:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132093458329910.html

I have no love for Qaddafi and I hoped he would have been deposed weeks ago. I still hope his regime crumbles at the hands of the rebels, but the nature in which the international community responded here while simultaneoulsly giving little to no attention to Yemen and Bahrain adds to the hyporcrisy this is solely a humanitarian intervention. Particularly since the effort seems to be halting Qaddafi's advance on Benghazi; not removing Qaddafi's regime.

Once again, I see that conmpatriots living in Serbia or in Canada still professed their anti-western propaganda. The coalition was permitted only for the purpose of saving human lifes and not protecting oil pipelines. As Ghadafi, I observe that you dont see the differece.

B92, why don't you report this is a battle for oil and not civilians? If this was about protecting civilian lives then why resort to violence and aggression, that ends up killing innocent civilians? Shouldn't effort be put into peace talks, ceasefires and so on?

This should be about protecting the will of the Libyan people but unfortunately this country is cursed by having large oil reserves.
(Zoran, 22 March 2011 09:53)
Libya controls some of the worlds oil but not enough for a war. Besides oil continued to flow with Gaddafi in power, a war only hampers that flow and probably for months if not years.
True talk of ceasefires are good but some do not listen, Gaddafi just like Milosevic just turn a deaf ear to such calls, and while everyone else is talking people are dying. So do you wait until all the opposition is dead before anyone intervenes? I am sure that is what you wished in the case of Kosovo.

you are so right!

So by your logic, America will now spends Billions of dollars to help Libya out of good will.

By chance, you don't happen to believe in the tooth fairy do you?

You are right on the money again Zoran!! The "coalition of the willing" is using the pesky little fact of innocent people being slaughtered to once again take over oil fields (because thats what the west does...according to evil dictators sitting on oil fields that don't want to lose their power)! Instead of using aggression to stop the murdering they should have planted trees along the streets of Tripoli! That would have put Gadaffi in his place!! Instead of bombing government tanks they should have put more effort into peace talks because we all know how well reasonable dialogue works when dealing with dictators!

"It's probably more about using up their stockpile of uranium depleted munitions."

- I knew it!!! Thank you for exposing the truth!!! I knew that America was planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya to dispose of depleted uranium! How could I not see it!! Do you think they planned this before the military set off that Tsunami in Japan (think about that one!)???

I cant believe that B92 is not setting the record straight and reporting this as a battle for oil!! Can you believe they are quoting from BBC (was the New York Times or the Financial Times not available?!?). Can you get with it and start quoting sources that are exposing the truth (e.g. random America hating bloggers that have an ax to grind and always seem to expose the truth like 9/11 being an inside job or that Russia traded Libya for Kosovo)???

I have to go now because the tinfoil antenna I have on my roof seems to have finally made contact with aliens!!!!!

The intervention (not war) is about protecting civilian lives and in the long run probably oil. Thanks to the coalition intervention less civilians are dying than had Gadaffi taken the East of Libya, where there would be a massive backlash with lots of revenge killing probably in triple figures. If Gadaffi bombs civilian populated areas then the Coalition will " use all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" per UNSCR 1973.

Gadaffi is currently shelling Misurata, which is against the ceasefire and thus against UNSCR 1973; therefore because civilians in the civilian populated area of Misurata are at risk and because Gadaffi is violating the ceasefire (all of which is against UNSCR 1973) I hope the Coalition bombs the hell out of Gadaffi's forces.


Also to report it as a "War for Oil" will be extremely poor journalism. It would be extremely biased. It would be very subjective instead of objective. I don't think B92 wants any of this to be associated with them. The coalition forces are participating in a UN mission and they will most likely at a later date be buying oil from Libya, however that is up for the authorities in Libya to decide.
(Ian, UK, 22 March 2011 17:46)

RE: UN resolution 1923

The Coalition allies including the UK and France have gone far beyone UN resolution 1923 and are now the air force of the rebels.

The most recent precedent was when the no fly zone was implemented in Iraq, however the western backed coalition back then did not directly attack the Iraqi army. The current coalition is bent on destroying Libya , dismantling the current Gaddafi leadership with the so called rebels who are inflicting civilian casualties as well. This war is a civil war, an internal conflict that the UK and France have interfered over oil, nothing more, nothing less.

Humanitarian reasons? Do you actually believe that? If this exercise was for humanitarian reasons, than the UN would have sent obvservors and then a UN peacekeeping force to seperate the parties.

NATO was not sent for a peacekeeping mission, but has an aggressive invader.

Gadaffi is shelling Misurata? The rebels are launching attacks against Ajdabiya with NATO air support. Is this a humanitarian mission? Is this not an aggressive attack on the civilians of this city?

This is not humanitariasm, it's the French and English participating in a civil war and revolution and violating the territorial integrity of Libya.

Less civilians are dying!! Only if you continue to watch CNN and BBC!! More civilans are dead and more will be dying because of the British and French intevention.

Why would it be extremely subjective and bad journalistic taste to write that this is War for Oil? That is exactly what it is , why is it subjective to print the truth? Are you really that blind or really that stupid to believe otherwise.

Zoran

It's probably more about using up their stockpile of uranium depleted munitions.

It is strange that NATO's primary approach to peace is to go bomb the crap out of civilian infrastructure.

There is no doubt that the Libyan people will suffer more after the bombings.

B92, why don't you report this is a battle for oil and not civilians? If this was about protecting civilian lives then why resort to violence and aggression, that ends up killing innocent civilians? Shouldn't effort be put into peace talks, ceasefires and so on?

This should be about protecting the will of the Libyan people but unfortunately this country is cursed by having large oil reserves.
(Zoran, 22 March 2011 09:53)

The intervention (not war) is about protecting civilian lives and in the long run probably oil. Thanks to the coalition intervention less civilians are dying than had Gadaffi taken the East of Libya, where there would be a massive backlash with lots of revenge killing probably in triple figures. If Gadaffi bombs civilian populated areas then the Coalition will " use all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" per UNSCR 1973.

Gadaffi is currently shelling Misurata, which is against the ceasefire and thus against UNSCR 1973; therefore because civilians in the civilian populated area of Misurata are at risk and because Gadaffi is violating the ceasefire (all of which is against UNSCR 1973) I hope the Coalition bombs the hell out of Gadaffi's forces.


Also to report it as a "War for Oil" will be extremely poor journalism. It would be extremely biased. It would be very subjective instead of objective. I don't think B92 wants any of this to be associated with them. The coalition forces are participating in a UN mission and they will most likely at a later date be buying oil from Libya, however that is up for the authorities in Libya to decide.

Are you really that blind or really that stupid to believe otherwise.
(Jugoslavija, 22 March 2011 20:23)
--
Don't be too concerned about Ian. He believes the BBC isn't biased, that the UK, US, France and Italy really care about the civilians in Libya and this really isn't about oil (for now), that the aggression pact is part of a UN mission and the best way to protect civilians is to bomb a country and its infrastructure.

"Once again, I see that conmpatriots living in Serbia or in Canada still professed their anti-western propaganda"
Boris

Anti-western propaganda is their life-motive.What they don't realize is that they have absolutely no influence, nothing, nada, nichts, rien, nista, semmi on those world events.

"Officially it is a humanitarian mission, not a war for oil or regime chance; however I reckon the West will end up getting oil and there will be regime change. Also lives will be saved, imagine if the Coalition had not intervened and Gadaffi had crushed the Rebels in the East. Gadaffi would order a massive backlash, there would be revenge killing probably numbering into six figures. If Gadaffi had taken the East thousands of people would have been murdered by Gadaffi's forces." (Ian UK)

-- I basically agree with this assessment. No doubt the immediate effect of an international response against Qaddafi is the saving of possibly thousands of lives that would have been lost - on both sides - had a battle for Benghazi taken place. For that, the US, France, and Great Britain deserve credit. But I still have to think that this "humanitarian" decision is closely associated with staving off a number of more long-term instabilities:

a) Massive amount of refugees flooding into a transitioning Egypt and Tunisia, not to mention Italy, France, and Malta

b) Qaddafi resorting to a "scorched earth" policy if he knew he was going down (thus the "oil" argument - it's not that we want to "steal" the oil so much as we want to keep him from setting it afire)

c) Making a protracted conflict double the resolve of authoritarian leaderships in the region to clamp down on protesters and reformists - worse than Bahrain.

So yes, there is clearly a humanitarian reason and I'm quite sure the people of Benghazi are grateful. But again, this is linked with geostrategic reasons the West has. Were this in central Africa, or the Gulf, little attention would be paid.

And I'm not optimistic the West will really make good on their pledge to get rid of Qaddafi. There's no credible political alternative in Libya. And you'd have to get rid of his entire family since removing the father will only enthrone the son. I wouldn't be surprised if this results in a protracted stalemate - at least until some credible alternative goverment can take the reigns in Tripoli. And from the looks of it, that may be far off.

(Ian, UK, 22 March 2011 17:46)

There have been very interesting conversions taking place behind closed doors of financial institutions – how is this new conflict going to be paid?

The answer that arose within one group meeting session was that the UK will have to tighten its belt further by closing additional social programs and cutting more jobs in Government. At present it is about 400 000 civil servants and it would have been a total of 650 000 if necessary. The revised agenda will be 650 000 to 700 000 in the first instance followed up to 1 million if the initial cuts are insufficient.

The revised agenda was only based on this war going for 2 weeks and a land invasion was not taken into account – you can almost double those figures if that occurs.

This aerial bombardment is limiting in itself because it has not stopped Gaddafi at all but only slowed him down so the next option is a ground invasion force followed by Al Qaida coming in and you will have an Iraqi-style mess. When you compare export of oil from Iraq prior to and after the invasion it is less than ¼ and the same will happen in Libya. What you will have is suicide bombings, oil pipelines sabotaged and more and more refugees coming to the UE.

Look at Iraq, after all that fighting to “free” the people from a dictator, which the west installed back in the 1970s, coalition forces have become helpless, trapped behind their own forts and unable to even go out on patrol without casualties. The Iraqi government has awarded most of the major contract to either Chinese or Russian companies with very little to the west.

What was their purpose for the invasion of Iraq?

1. weapons of mass destruction
2. Saddam working with Al Qaida
3. bringing democracy to the entire middle east

Now its more like operation tail between their legs and looking for an exit strategy.

Had the french aircraft not acted on time, Bengasi would have been the second night of San Bartolomeo..

gadhafi shooting civilans? what civilans?I only see people with aks and rpgs!how about ray gun ronnie blowing omars little girl to bitswhile she was at a peace rally with missle strike!GO OMAR!!!

At the start of the Libya aggression, Obama was taking questions from reporters in Chile. He was asked by local news people whether he would apologize for americas role in the bloody turmoil in Chile decades earlier and americas support for a murdering dicatator named pinochet. No apology came.

A few hours ago Obama was in El Salvador taking questions about Libya. Will the local news people ask him to apologize for americas support for murdering death squads in El Salvadors civil war?

(Jugoslavija, 22 March 2011 20:23)

First off, UNSCR 1923 is about Chad and the Central African Republic not Libya. What you mean is UNSCR 1973.

Everything that Coalition have done is in line with UNSCR 1973. Cameron was very very very smart when he drew up UNSCR 1973, he has tricked BRIC into accepting it. The most important line in the resolution is "authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" which permits the Coalition to attack Pro-Gadaffi forces if they shell towns and cities inhabited by civilians. BRIC were tricked into accepting that sentence.

Officially it is a humanitarian mission, not a war for oil or regime chance; however I reckon the West will end up getting oil and there will be regime change. Also lives will be saved, imagine if the Coalition had not intervened and Gadaffi had crushed the Rebels in the East. Gadaffi would order a massive backlash, there would be revenge killing probably numbering into six figures. If Gadaffi had taken the East thousands of people would have been murdered by Gadaffi's forces.

This Coalition intervention is the lesser of two evils. No reliable source has reported civilian casualties caused by the Coalition yet. If a few civilians accidentally do get killed it is not as bad as letting Gadaffi murder civilians in the thousands which he would of done had he taken the east. The lesser of two evils.

Also stop this whole BBC/ CNN argument and that Westerners are brainwashed. If you have noticed I read B92 for an alternative view. Media in Serbia can be as biased as Western media and most of the time it is. Serbian media is hardly brilliant when it comes to neutrality. You lot are all brainwashed by Serbian propaganda. It can work both ways. Then have a look at Russian and Chinese media, that is extremely biased. Then look at how their journalists are treated. It is disgusting!

Why shouldn't B92 report it as a War for Oil? Because that is an opinion, it is an analysis. It isn't fact even though it may have some elements of truth in the long run. If B92 were to report it as a war for oil, it would make it into a "Propaganda Machine".

There are many many reasons as to why the Coalition have intervened in Libya. Oil is just one of the reasons. Other reasons are because UNSCR 1973 said so, to get regime change, to promote democracy, to boost support for politicians (a short fast victorious war is always good for popular support of politicians), humanitarians reasons etc, get a thorn out of their side, vengeance for Lockerbie, to stop mass murder of innocent civilians etc. I could go on forever.

''gadhafi shooting civilans? what civilans?I only see people with aks and rpgs!how about ray gun ronnie blowing omars little girl to bitswhile she was at a peace rally with missle strike!GO OMAR!!!
(george miletich, 23 March 2011 00:22) ''

4 weeks ago, gedafi bombed 250 [unarmed] protesters ...you don't have to be a rocket sciencist to understand why libyan people picked up ak-s and rpgs against gedafi right after that event... if a dictator understands force as the only means of solution, that's what will solve the issue...more brutal force.

@Boris J, Joe and all the other

don´t be naive, boys.

if the US are only helping to save lives of innocent civilians, why do they turn a blind eye to the fact that small arms are being delivered from Egypt?

you think that the US have nothing to do with that, right? =)

and, another question for you smarties: why do the US not act against the violent crackdown on the poeple in Bahrain, if it is human rights they are protecting?

they are of course not staying quiet only because they got their 5th fleet over there in Manama, right?

I am just curious to read your answers...