Does mr.Cameron have a mandate for the next phase of the military action in Libya?

#1
The Times | UK News, World News and Opinion

David Cameron does not have a mandate for the next phase of the military action in Libya, David Davis has said today. The senior Tory backbencher said that the Prime Minister’s joint article with President Obama and President Sarkozy in today’s Times shows that he intends to change the terms of the action. A new mandate is required and Parliament, currently on Easter recess, must be recalled early next week, Mr Davis told The World at One on BBC Radio 4. The Commons vote, which saw MPs give overwhelming backing for military action just over three weeks ago, “was effectively for a no fly zone,” he says.
Do you think that mr.Cameron also need a new UNSC resolution for the next phase?
 
#4
Which will be hilarious to find as the rest of NATO seem to be "out to lunch".

As to the UN I doubt Cameron et al will go back there. Another country may raise the issue though.
 
#6
What nato needs to do is keep out of Libya.
I am in two minds. On the one hand I think we should stay out of it and let the arabs kill each other, but on the other its good for the military as it shows Cameron what a muppet he was for all the cuts....although I doubt he see's it like that.

At the end of the day the result will be the same. We will see Gaddafi hanging from a lamp post and some hard core Islamic group will be running the show.
 
#7
Meanwhile voices about Libya debate in the Parliament become stronge even within the Conservative party.

Libya: Tory MPs urge recall of Parliament for debate on 'mission creep' - Telegraph

Conservative MP John Baron said that it was now clear that Britain and its allies were pursuing a policy of ''regime change'' in Libya.
...
''I feel that mission in Libya has changed quite significantly. When it was put before the House, the emphasis was very much on humanitarian assistance. This has changed into a mission of regime change,'' he said.

''If one was being charitable one would say that this is mission creep. If one was being uncharitable, one would say this was always the underlying motive.''
 
#8
After CMD said 'Goodbye Colonel' before he realised that the the colonel hadn't gone, it rather forced his hand. he now has to have regime change or lose all British business with Libya.
 
#9
What NATO really needs is more ground attack planes, it seems.
NATO has enough ground attack planes, thank you.

What certain members need to do is recognise that they cannot enter into incoherent missions under-resourced, under-funded and fundamentally flawed - and then expect other members to bail them out of the mess.
 
#10
Do you think that mr.Cameron also need a new UNSC resolution for the next phase?
Define 'need'.

As demonstrated several times over the past decade or so - including by your own beloved Rodina - UNSCRs are pretty worthless and unnecessary pieces of paper when it comes to trashing other places.
 
#11
So Cameron wants the current NATO mission to move to 'regime change'. Interesting how this started as an internal civil war and we have quickly distorted the problem to an evil empire. I do not believe regime change is acceptable and the UN will not support another call for a new UNSCR.
 
#12
Define 'need'.

As demonstrated several times over the past decade or so - including by your own beloved Rodina - UNSCRs are pretty worthless and unnecessary pieces of paper when it comes to trashing other places.
I don't think that UNSC is absolutely worthless. The resolution 1973 is actively being used by the West (in its interpretation). The West claims that it acts according 'values' and 'principles', that it respects UN charter... supposedly.

100 or even 50 year ago there would be no problem to unleash a war in Libya or Egypt because it is 'in the interests of Great Britain'. Modern politicians need a justification.

In this sense mr.Cameron needs a new UNSC resolution. It would be an ideal solution (but unlikely it will happen). In theory mr.Cameron, the Dwarf and the tanned Boy could send troops to Libya without any UNSC resolution but how it would happen only Allah knows.

In fact the West seeks a new UNSC resolution.

BBC News - Libya conflict: Nato summit fails to secure new planes

French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet suggested a new UN Security Council resolution would be needed for Nato allies to achieve their goals in Libya.

Speaking on French radio, Mr Longuet conceded that ousting Col Gaddafi would be "certainly" beyond the scope of the existing UN Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya, and could require a new council vote.

"Beyond resolution 1973, certainly it didn't mention the future of Gaddafi but I think that three major countries saying the same thing is important to the United Nations and perhaps one day the Security Council will adopt a resolution."
 
#13
I don't think that UNSC is absolutely worthless.
Worthless and useless are exactly the words that describe UNSCRs and the UNSC body when it comes to taking action against any of the 5 1/2 permanent members. Any censure will just be vetoed, which effectively grants them a free-hand to do whatever they want.

The resolution 1973 is actively being used by the West (in its interpretation). The West claims that it acts according 'values' and 'principles', that it respects UN charter... supposedly.

100 or even 50 year ago there would be no problem to unleash a war in Libya or Egypt because it is 'in the interests of Great Britain'. Modern politicians need a justification.
And UNSCR1973 is not a justication it is a pseudo-legitimisation.

In this sense mr.Cameron needs a new UNSC resolution.
No he doesn't He may like to have a new Resolution, but he's wise enough to know he'll never get it, so why bother trying?

It would be an ideal solution (but unlikely it will happen). In theory mr.Cameron, the Dwarf and the tanned Boy could send troops to Libya without any UNSC resolution but how it would happen only Allah knows.
So, after all your garbage above, you now agree that a new UNSCR is NOT needed for further action of any kind.

In fact the West seeks a new UNSC resolution.
And back to the garbage...

Can we have the old KGB_resident back. Not only has the standard of your English gone down, but your propaganda pronunciation have also lost their shine and believability.
 
#14
We'll do what we want and the Russians can do nothing about it.

What's up Sergei old chap? Feeling a tad peeved that once more Russia, huffs and it puffs and everyone ignores it, while we set about destroying Russian supplied equipment with a will?
 
#15
Does anybody north of the Mediterranean care?

If the North Africans want help bombing each other even further back into the bronze-age should we feel obliged to intervene? Perhaps not, but it might make the telly more interesting.
Besides, it does help show the current government as the cnuts they really are in the wake of the SDSR



I see HMS Cumberland has finally arrived home for scrapping.
 
#16
I don't think it really matters if Dave has a mandate or not. Even while hastily passing the initial resolution it was hardly a secret that Qaddafi's fall was what Paris, London and DC saw as the goal. Having trashed the previous highly profitable modus vivendi with this rogue actor nothing else made a wit sense strategically. The error was they just greatly overestimated the fragility of the Qaddafi regime and the likely necessity of a ground invasion to end it swiftly.

Looking at the polls Dave does have substantial public backing for this intervention. Not as strong as in France but better than the bare majority in the US. It's about the only Tory policy that has public support. On the other hand as in the other NATO states not many of the public are actually willing to plough their taxes into another war which suggests support is sentimental and essentially fragile. This may be a shaky basis for escalation but Mr Tony prosecuted the Iraq war with pretty threadbare support in comparison.

What matters is what Barry does. At the moment it looks like DC regards this as a European problem and would just like it to back into the grass. It looks to me that without full US commitment the Brits and the French are leaderless and very nervous about putting troops in. Which will probably leave Paris and London bickering about resourcing a war neither of them can afford while praying the Qaddafi regime implodes. The costs will just stack up if the old bugger survives and at the moment that outcome is not unlikely.

It's pointless having another vote on regime change in Libya, the die is cast. Going for a second resolution that unties NATO's hands is almost certain to fail. Unfortunately Qaddafi as yet has failed to provide a decent Syrian or even IDF sized atrocity and I suspect Barry is none too unhappy about the lawyerly quagmire create by R.1973. This has echos of the legal shambles in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. It's a very silly way to make war and frankly we'd be better ignoring the legal niceties, in this case they are a fine excuse for dithering.

If there's a debate to be had it's about how much this might cost, how much we'll save by ending it decisively and if we are going to end up in yet another costly nation building exercise.
 
#18
Whitecity, apparently you have some problems with English. I mean political English. So I would like to comment my own words to make them more clear to you.

I don't think that UNSC is absolutely worthless.
From my point of view it is obvious. If UNSC is absolutely worthless then why Great Britain, France and the USA ever take part in its sessions, propose resolutions, justify their actions by UNSC resolutions? Just because it is not absolutely worthless. Whitecity, do you agree with my argument?

The resolution 1973 is actively being used by the West (in its interpretation).
I believe it is obvious. Whitecity, do you agree with this statement?

The West claims that it acts according 'values' and 'principles', that it respects UN charter...
Maybe you think Whitecity that the West never made such claims?

100 or even 50 year ago there would be no problem to unleash a war in Libya or Egypt because it is 'in the interests of Great Britain'. Modern politicians need a justification.
Again, I don't see anything that you may disagree with here. Indeed modern politicians need some sort of justification, sometimes false but now it is unthinkable for Western politicians just to say: there is a lot of oil in Libya so we walk to you.

In this sense mr.Cameron needs a new UNSC resolution.
It is a context dependent satatement. Mr.Cameron as other Western politician needs a justification for his future actions. I hope you agree with it. I don't claim that a new UNSC resolution is the only possible solution for mr.Cameron. But definetely it is the best possible solution for him.

It would be an ideal solution (but unlikely it will happen).
I believe that you Whitecity agree with both statements (about the ideal solution and that unlikely it will happen)

Let's look at this phrase

A man needs a car but as he is short of money he buys a bycicle.

I used a word 'needs' in similar meaning.

In theory mr.Cameron, the Dwarf and the tanned Boy could send troops to Libya without any UNSC resolution but how it would happen only Allah knows.
I would like to add: only Allah knows how it will end.

My sincere apologies for poor English. Some English words has Russian equivalents but sometimes there is a subtle difference in shades of semantic colouring. It could cause misunderstanding.

Russian translation of an expression 'someone needs something' means that someone wishes to have something but doesn't need something absolutely. The Russian variant voided any semantical subtext. For example that there exists a problem that caused the need. And if such a problem exists then 'something' is the only possible solution to the problem.
 
#19
My sincere apologies for poor English. Some English words has Russian equivalents but sometimes there is a subtle difference in shades of semantic colouring. It could cause misunderstanding..
What's the Russian for : 'No one gives a stuff what Russia thinks'?
 
#20
Whitecity, apparently you have some problems with English. I mean political English. So I would like to comment my own words to make them more clear to you.

From my point of view it is obvious. If UNSC is absolutely worthless then why Great Britain, France and the USA ever take part in its sessions, propose resolutions, justify their actions by UNSC resolutions? Just because it is not absolutely worthless. Whitecity, do you agree with my argument?
No I don't agree with your argument.

I believe it is obvious. Whitecity, do you agree with this statement?
No I don't agree with that statement.

Maybe you think Whitecity that the West never made such claims?
I thought you wanted to talk "political English" not public statements to (mis)lead the masses as to their intentions.

Again, I don't see anything that you may disagree with here.
I rubbished your commentary because I think it is utterly unreflective of reality.

Is this the best a KGB_resident can do, simple repeat the same garbage and then tell me I agree with it?

I DON'T!!!!

Maybe your English is not as good as you think it is and the Russian thoughts swimming in your head that you have convinced yourself I cannot fault are being poorly and inaccurately represented in English.

Indeed modern politicians need some sort of justification, sometimes false but now it is unthinkable for Western politicians just to say: there is a lot of oil in Libya so we walk to you.
A bit like saying you have to protect "Russian" passport holders in Georgia.

It is a context dependent satatement. Mr.Cameron as other Western politician needs a justification for his future actions. I hope you agree with it.
I do not agree with the word "needs" in that sentence. If you insert "would like" you would be closer to the truth but not necessarily always right.

I don't claim that a new UNSC resolution is the only possible solution for mr.Cameron. But definetely it is the best possible solution for him.
The British PM and his advisors are smart enough to recognise a 2nd resolution granting approval for regime change (or similar) is NEVER going to happen. So it's not even on the table. Why are you so convinced by the idea that it is even being persued?

I believe that you Whitecity agree with both statements (about the ideal solution and that unlikely it will happen)
Is this the 4th or the 5th time you've tried to tell me what I believe. The old KGB_resident never played this silly Ljubljanka tactic. Is this a sign of the new Russia reverting back to the old Soviet ways?

Let's look at this phrase

A man needs a car but as he is short of money he buys a bycicle.

I used a word 'needs' in similar meaning.
So, your argument now is about basing "needs" on unrealistic fantasies. So, back to the trouble with your English not being up to standard any longer.

I would like to add: only Allah knows how it will end.
I also disagree with that statement on a number of levels.

My sincere apologies for poor English. Some English words has Russian equivalents but sometimes there is a subtle difference in shades of semantic colouring. It could cause misunderstanding.
It sure does.

I hope this does not get misunderstood in translation: I do not agree with any of your statements of the past 2 or 3 posts in this thread. They do not reflect reality. I accept, they may reflect the (false) Russian interpretation of events. But that's your problem to recognise and resolve.

Russian translation of an expression 'someone needs something' means that someone wishes to have something but doesn't need something absolutely. The Russian variant voided any semantical subtext. For example that there exists a problem that caused the need. And if such a problem exists then 'something' is the only possible solution to the problem.
?????

The simple translation of 'need' is that something cannot be done without. Clearly a second UNSCR does NOT fall into that category. You are describing a meaning where we would use "would like". Please pass a note of this free English lesson on to your next incarnation when you change seats.

However, if you watch too much US trash TV, you may notice there is now a preponderence for Americans to use the word "need" as some sort of device to assert their deluded authority/control over another. They seem to think it is a polite way of issuing orders.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top