THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[egbert]

And that's why we spend so much on our military, in order to make it the finest, fittest, most effective military force in history. This protects our liberty against enemies foreign and domestic, and is why we can say "don't fuck with America."

We really mean it, and are willing to back it up with force at any time.

Damn right! When those pesky Vietnamese started threatening us, why we showed them, didn't we!

[JimC]

Meanwhile, Syria and Israel have joined the "slaughter civilians" club. I'm guessing NATO will not intervene....

I think, in their own seperate ways, they've always been members...

[mistermack]

I personally don't give a toss who wins in Libya. If fact I hope nobody wins.
Gadafi's regime is violently opressive, and I fully expect the rebels to be just the same, if they were to win. It's in the blood of people in that region, they don't understand anything else. ( as a group ).

I would just point out the sheer hypocrisy of the coalition position.
Gadafi spews this typical arab rhetoric about destroying his enemies, and the british and americans and french take every word as literal truth, and use it to justify taking sides in a civil conflict.

Yet Gadafi announced that his forces were ceasing fire, and they rubbished that statement. (rightly). And Gadafi denied anythying to do with Lockerbie, and they rubbished that. So it's obvious, they know perfectly well that you can't rely on a word that Gadafi says, yet they are using his statements as an excuse for taking part in a civil war.
They do the same with Iran. Abberdinnerjacket announces that Israel should be wiped from the map, and they take that as a threat of genocide. ( which it isn't ).
But they feel perfectly free to rubbish anything else he says. And the public buy it without question.

The public are being treated like idiots again, and they are fully living up to that tag with fabulous gullibility.

[Aos Si]

Actually, there is no such rule about asking. If someone attacks a NATO country, for example, other NATO countries can and will respond and they won't ask anyone before doing it, for example. The inherent rights of nations were not abrogated by the UN Charter and the UN Charter specifically says so.

I've read the resolutions. There isn't one that literally says what you say it says.

Libya has asserted the illegality of the war. Qadafi himself has claimed that it is illegal. And, Iraq never filed anything with the UN Security Council over the Iraq War either.

The idea that the SC is a "war approval body" and wars are legal if approved by the SC and illegal if not approved by the SC is not correct international law.

There was a treaty set out between Iraq and other nations about monitoring the situation and weapons inspections and about reasons for military incursions. Probably the reason you see nothing is you are not looking in the right place.

There was no treaty, there was a cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam after the defeat of his invasion of Kuwait. That cease fire required him to submit to WMD inspections. He defied 14 UN resolutions regarding his interference with those inspections over a dozen years. Hostilities were re-opened by the United States after September 11, 2001, because there was credible evidence that Saddam was both harboring and financially supporting terrorism, and that he was both hiding and building various weapons of mass destruction. This evidence was presented to the coalition leaders, including Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton...and Barack Obama, and our Congress authorized a second invasion as a result of Saddam's own recalcitrance and violations of the terms of the CEASE FIRE agreement. Legally, we were simply continuing our take-down of a brutal dictator who invaded one of our allies and who did actually have WMD's that he failed to report, allow inspection of, and dispose of, specifically thousands of tons of Sarin-filled artillery shells which he moved to Syria in an airlift and truck convoy under the guise of "humanitarian relief" for an earthquake in Syria. This is according to his own Air Marshall who was in charge of the 40-odd 747 flights that moved the WMDs out of Iraq immediately prior to our second invasion.

There was no credible evidence. Bush lied, he wanted to settle some unfinished business his father had started, as a bonus there were vast oil fields there, the Iraqi people were of secondary concern.

There was an agreement, that the US would consult the UN before it invaded unless its troops were in danger, you broke it. Deal with it. Everyone thinks it was illegal except US it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

I mean do you actually believe your own bs? When you hear it like half a dozen times doesn't repeating the same shit no one except the US believes get tiresome? You're only lying to yourself anyway. I mean I gave up trying to reason with people ages ago. No matter what documents you point out, who signed what, what agreements were made. People just chose to believe what the hell they like anyway. It's tiresome.

History will record that but for a UN Security Council resolution that would of been vetoed by the US anyway it was illegal. Kofi Anan is a big fat liar though. Ooookay. I don't think anyone has ever really bought it do you? Perhaps if you put the same old tired denials in a bigger font, or you repeated the nonsense louder someone, somewhere will buy it? I wouldn't bank on it though.

There were no WMDs ffs? All the security documents, weapons inspection files say that whatever was left was dysfunctional and probably only remained because it was forgotten about. Do you get all your information from Fox or something?

UN resolutions
Resolution 1441

UNSC resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002 to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (resolution 660, resolution 661, resolution 678, resolution 686, resolution 687, resolution 688, resolution 707, resolution 715, resolution 986, and resolution 1284).

The resolution strengthened the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), giving them authority to go anywhere, at any time and talk to anyone in order to verify Iraq’s disarmament."[20]

On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, assured the Security Council that there were no "hidden triggers" with respect to the use of force, and that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." However, he then added: "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."[21]

As the same meeting, UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG used many of the same words. "If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12."[22][]...

...[]
Downing Street memo
Main article: Downing Street memo

On 1 May 2005, a related UK document known as the Downing Street memo, detailing the minutes of a meeting on 26 July 2002, was apparently leaked to The Sunday Times. The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Foreign Secretary) Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity but did dispute that it accurately stated the situation. The Downing Street memo is relevant to the question of the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq because it discusses some legal theories that were considered prior to the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

[Seth]

There was no credible evidence.

There was plenty of credible evidence. Enough that the Coalition and the Congress were convinced.

Bush lied,

An unproven assertion. No one has ever been able to point to a single "lie" that Bush told. All his statements were based on the best military and covert intelligence available at the time. Saddam was actively TRYING to convince everyone that he DID have WMD programs. He admitted as much before they hanged him. His records confirm this. The fact that his sham-WMD programs (and his actual WMD stockpiles of Sarin) turned out to be a sham is not the result of a "lie" by the President. Those who made the decisions had access to the same raw intel data indicating Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspections and his "shell game" of moving truck convoys of presumed WMD components and manufacturing equipment out of facilities as UN inspectors were enroute to the facilities for inspection was adequate evidence upon which to base the decision to restart hostilities. The fact that this "shell game," which was observed by satellites, may or may not have been actually moving nuclear materials or other WMD's is irrelevant. We have every right to make military decisions on the available intelligence information, and that was substantial and indicated that Saddam was continuing WMD research and development in direct violation of the UN mandates and the cease-fire agreement.

If you claim "Bush lied," then produce a single statement and the proof that he knowingly falsified the evidence.

he wanted to settle some unfinished business his father had started, as a bonus there were vast oil fields there, the Iraqi people were of secondary concern.

So how come we didn't seize the Iraqi oil fields, hm? If oil imperialism was our motivation, please explain why Iraq is running its own oil fields and is selling their oil on the free market? Explain to us why US troops are not occupying the oil fields and delivery infrastructure and why every drop of Iraqi oil is not coming to the US without a dime being paid to Iraq?

Any answers to that, Einstein? You've been drinking the leftist Kool-Aid, my friend.

There was an agreement, that the US would consult the UN before it invaded unless its troops were in danger, you broke it. Deal with it. Everyone thinks it was illegal except US it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

I mean do you actually believe your own bs? When you hear it like half a dozen times doesn't repeating the same shit no one except the US believes get tiresome? You're only lying to yourself anyway. I mean I gave up trying to reason with people ages ago. No matter what documents you point out, who signed what, what agreements were made. People just chose to believe what the hell they like anyway. It's tiresome.

Unlike you, I've actually done some research on the matter, so my conclusions are founded in fact, not anti-American propaganda. But, if you don't like the discussion, feel free to fuck off elsewhere.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LIbya 'accepts peace plan' - Zuma

[Hermit]

Our correspondent says that the AU team's plan for the two sides to work together in a transition to democracy looks to be a non-starter.

He says neither side appears ready to make the compromises necessary for a ceasefire.

Col Gaddafi has ignored his own ceasefires in the past, including one announced immediately after the UN authorised a no-fly zone over Libya.

[Aos Si]

There was no credible evidence.

There was plenty of credible evidence. Enough that the Coalition and the Congress were convinced.

You mean they thought they could cobble together enough support based on lies to convince gullible people like you, what they were doing was right. Read the actual reports not the propaganda. That leaked document is telling. The head of MI6 says explicitly that the US are fitting policy to justify something that is thinly supported. That it was a foregone conclusion basically case or not. You seem to indulge in straight up believing everything politicians say, and dismissing anything that is said off the record and hence is likely to be the real story. I really hope that brand of drug works to ease the pain of cognitive dissonance for you.

Bush lied,

An unproven assertion. No one has ever been able to point to a single "lie" that Bush told. All his statements were based on the best military and covert intelligence available at the time. Saddam was actively TRYING to convince everyone that he DID have WMD programs. He admitted as much before they hanged him. His records confirm this. The fact that his sham-WMD programs (and his actual WMD stockpiles of Sarin) turned out to be a sham is not the result of a "lie" by the President. Those who made the decisions had access to the same raw intel data indicating Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspections and his "shell game" of moving truck convoys of presumed WMD components and manufacturing equipment out of facilities as UN inspectors were enroute to the facilities for inspection was adequate evidence upon which to base the decision to restart hostilities. The fact that this "shell game," which was observed by satellites, may or may not have been actually moving nuclear materials or other WMD's is irrelevant. We have every right to make military decisions on the available intelligence information, and that was substantial and indicated that Saddam was continuing WMD research and development in direct violation of the UN mandates and the cease-fire agreement.

If you claim "Bush lied," then produce a single statement and the proof that he knowingly falsified the evidence.

He said there was good evidence of WMDs and terrorist support in Afghanistan knowing full well such a statement relied on scant evidence if any.

Bush never lied, OMFG the worlds first honest politician, fuck me lets have a parade! All politicians lie, just how naive are you? It just so happens Bush was caught several times by the media doing so.

he wanted to settle some unfinished business his father had started, as a bonus there were vast oil fields there, the Iraqi people were of secondary concern.

So how come we didn't seize the Iraqi oil fields, hm? If oil imperialism was our motivation, please explain why Iraq is running its own oil fields and is selling their oil on the free market? Explain to us why US troops are not occupying the oil fields and delivery infrastructure and why every drop of Iraqi oil is not coming to the US without a dime being paid to Iraq?

Any answers to that, Einstein? You've been drinking the leftist Kool-Aid, my friend.

I'm not a leftist so no I haven't. There are right wing people who believe Bushes motivations were anything but the stated ones, so don't panzy around with this leftist accusation with me, it might fly with other idiots to use blanket terms, but the facts still remain and they have nothing to do with politics. Facts are just facts whatever colour you want to paint them.

Bushes main goal was to remove Saddam he says this clearly to press after the fact. He also admits that his motivations were far from clear to the press and he's said himself he's not always been 100% honest with them. I never said his driving goal was to win oil fields. Amongst his many driving goals was to win them for a democratic Iraq and hence open them up to the West as resource sources, hence the first and greatest priority was to overthrow Saddam.

I am a genius thanks for the monicker.

Ad homs are fun.

There was an agreement, that the US would consult the UN before it invaded unless its troops were in danger, you broke it. Deal with it. Everyone thinks it was illegal except US it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

I mean do you actually believe your own bs? When you hear it like half a dozen times doesn't repeating the same shit no one except the US believes get tiresome? You're only lying to yourself anyway. I mean I gave up trying to reason with people ages ago. No matter what documents you point out, who signed what, what agreements were made. People just chose to believe what the hell they like anyway. It's tiresome.

Unlike you, I've actually done some research on the matter, so my conclusions are founded in fact, not anti-American propaganda. But, if you don't like the discussion, feel free to fuck off elsewhere.

Why don't you fuck off somewhere else and take your delusional bilge with you then? Since its clearly horse shit propaganda that you have manured over your opinion.

Paragraph 12 clearly states that the UN SC must be consulted if there is to be a decision to invade. The US agrees unless it is attacked to abide by that. Then it breaks its word.



Group think is a powerful psychotropic.

Anti American propaganda oh fuck the hell off with the martyr act, this has nothing to do with some barely concealed racist nonsense. Please.

Sure I dislike neocons they are the crazies of Republican politics, hell I thing libertarians generally are as misguided as communists. But one whole mess of a country? Fuck no.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Libya: Gaddafi government accepts truce plan, says Zuma

[Coito ergo sum]

And that's why we spend so much on our military, in order to make it the finest, fittest, most effective military force in history. This protects our liberty against enemies foreign and domestic, and is why we can say "don't fuck with America."

We really mean it, and are willing to back it up with force at any time.

Damn right! When those pesky Vietnamese started threatening us, why we showed them, didn't we!

Based on the logic of the Libyan War, threats or lack thereof are irrelevant. All we need to do is have the President articulate a potential humanitarian issue, and it's fine. Who cares if there wasn't a threat? The Communists might have slaughtered innocent civilians, and when the US left Vietnam that potentiality came to fruition. They did slaughter civilians.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even in the US if the judges of the Supreme Court interpret the constitution to say individuals no longer have the right to have guns you no longer have that right,

Or - the Supreme Court was wrong. They have been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Our system is an imperfect one. And, if they ruled, for example, that the federal Congress could make a law that prohibited expressions of political speech that were not approved by the government, that would be unconstitutional. Since the Court would have failed in its duty to uphold the Constitution, it would be up to the President to do his duty and refuse to enforce the unconstitutional law. Further the States and the People would have to defend their rights against the unconstitutional law and the lawless Court in that instance - wouldn't have to be violently, it could be with a Constitutional amendment or Constitutional Convention - it could be with demonstrations and other petitions to the government for redress of grievances. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, the saying goes.

if they say Atheists, blacks, catholics don't count as humans they no longer have any rights. The only limits the US government has is what judges say it has (not a consitution) and guess who appoints the judges.

That's incorrect. As we have seen with lately in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the President can refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. The separation of powers provides some ability to combat the lawlessness of one branch. If Congress makes an unconstitutional law, then the Court's duty is to stop it. If the Court upholds an unconstitutional law, it's the President's duty to stop it. If all three branches fail in their duty, it's up to the States and the People, under principles of federalism, to take the necessary action to make them do their duty. There are legal mechanisms to fix these things.

In the British Parliamentary system, you have much the same issue, because you have a merged legislative and executive branch, and you have a Court system, albeit one that is not quite as powerful as in the US. The US has three equivalent branches. In your system, liberty can be just as tenuous, and if the Parliament voted to make a law restricting the right to make political statements, there is even less recourse to stop it than in the US.

Give me rule by majority rule no matter how moronic, its better than judges

I think having some clearly stated principles that the government cannot breach is at the heart of Anglo-American law. Our Constitutional system here is based in part on the English Constitutional system. Yours is older and grew over centuries, but you still have a Constitutional system, albeit a more complicated and pliant one.

Rule by majority, without some check on the majority's discretion is not necessarily better. Much writing has been done on the "tyranny of the majority." It's the majority rule that gave UK an "established" church of England. You have a "Sovereign Queen" who is ex officio Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and she is required by the Act of Settlement 1701 to "join in communion with the Church of England." As part of the coronation ceremony, the Sovereign swears an oath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England" before being crowned by the senior cleric of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury – a similar oath concerning the established Church of Scotland, which is a Presbyterian church, having already been given by the new sovereign in his or her Accession Council. All clergy of the Church swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before taking office.

I mean - really - given the uproar the world over because President Obama voluntarily said, "...so help me God" at the end of his oath of office - what should be the reaction that the titular head of the British State and the Church (no separation of church and state at all in England) making that kind of an oath? Where is the protection against this complete abrogation of separation of church and state? Every taxpayer in the UK supports that financially.

Moreover, to say that the UK does not operate on the basis of positive rights of individuals which the Courts have power to enforce is no longer true. In the 1990s, the UK incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 which granted citizens specific positive rights and gave judiciary some power to enforce them (through Declarations of Incompatibility), and the courts can refuse to enforce, or "strike down", any incompatible secondary legislation.

Your Bill of Rights from 1689 protects, among other things, Freedom of Speech and the right to be free from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments - these were incorporated into the American Bill of Rights. It also has the right to petition the Monarch without fear of retribution (and the US has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances). Thus, 30% of the American bill of rights comes from your bill of rights in 1689. Our Constitution's preservation of the right of habeas corpus, which may only be suspended in times of war, is directly from English Constitutional law.

The scorn that some Brits have for "bills of rights" was not always so. Your Petition of Right, your Declaration of Rights and your Bill of Rights were favorites of the English people. Following the English practice in the mother country, the American colonists issued a Declaration of Rights through their first Continental (Stamp Act) Congress in 1765 (before the Revolution). http://www.constitution.org/bcp/dor_sac.htm And, a Declaration of Colonial Rights was adopted in 1774 - http://www.constitution.org/bcp/colright.htm (also before the Revolution).

The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution (1789) contains nothing novel. They Bill embodies "guaranties and immunities which are inherited from our English ancestors." (quote from the Supreme Court of the US). Notice that it is "Safeguards" that are given, Not "Rights", and unless "We The People" defend those safeguards and insist in strictest adherence, "We The People" may, as you have pointed out, lose them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Come to the defence.



There was no war, you didn't come to the defence of anyone, there were people in jails facing the death sentence for being dissidents. Oh come off it this is weak stuff. Why not invade China then since thousands of people are languishing in their jails (many of whom face the death sentence) for doing nothing more than speaking out against the government, or being part of dissident movements. How about South America, thousands of people rounded up and made to disappear, I didn't see you running in there? Pull the other one its got bells on.

That's precisely the point I'm making. With the widespread acceptance of the "rationale" for War in Libya, there is no impediment to war in any of the places you mention. I agree.

There was no more "war in Libya" when the US and France et al intervened than there was in Egypt. There was popular unrest and demonstrations. There was nothing more than what happens in the US all the time, with 10s of thousands of people acting up - like in Wisconsin recently or in the unrest against international trade summits. The only justification for intervention was the POTENTIAL that Qadafi MIGHT hurt his own people. That, of course, is nothing that the US, UK and France haven't done themselves - hurt their own people.

So, isn't this an even more tenuous reason for war than the litany of reasons presented for the Iraq War?

And, what of "robust debate prior to the use of force?" That was a huge bugaboo in 2003-2006 - it was a "Rush to War" and we never debated it, right? Here - was there any debate on the Libya issue at all? Did the press question it, or investigate it at all?

The precedent this sets is not a good one, my friend. The next Republican President will be able to point to Libya, and say "I'll go to war for EXACTLY the same (lack of) reason."

There are nearly 60 nations on Amnesty internationals list that are guilty of egregious violations of UNCoT and other human rights violations, some of them as bad if not worse than Iraqs. Why not start at the top of the list and work your way down?

Why not indeed. Why are we in Libya, by the same reason?

The reason for Iraq in 2003 was because, as I mentioned, Iraq had violated the Cease Fire Accord, Iraq had violated at least 12 UN resolutions calling for its compliance and was inhibiting weapons inspectors at every turn. Iraq had invaded Kuwait previously, and its violation of the Cease Fire Accords means that a state of war could be reinstituted ON THAT BASIS ALONE. Just like in Korea, where there is only a cease fire - any resumption of firing by the North or the South is legal justification for recommencing hostilities. Add to that Saddams past conduct with respect to his own people, his horrific regime that murdered its own people by the thousands, and the rest of the litany recounted in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and you have far more casus belli than for any other country.

Add to that the fact that Iraq was the most studied enemy, where we had 12+ years of continuous monitoring, overflights, and forces keyed on this particular enemy and you have every PRACTICAL reason to put Iraq at the top of the list. We had the battle plan ready and had Hussein dead to rights.

I mean really do you even believe the excuses yourself, no one outside of the US does (who does not have a vested interest in not answering questions about this) and most of those involved in our country at least have admitted their culpability. What harm would being honest for once do you, or your country, really?

I've been completely honest, and your country was on our side, remember? I heard Tony Blair defend his government's Iraq policy robustly, well after the War. So, please don't make up nonsense like "no one outside of the US does." 37+ countries were part of the Coalition in Iraq, and those folks didn't think they were acting wrongly at the time. Moreover, that's far more countries than are participating in the Libyan War fiasco.

Some do and some don't. Tony Blair doesn't and didn't, for example. Neither many from the 37 nations that participated in the Iraq War.

Hiding behind the USs immunity from SC executive decisions by way of veto is hardly what I would call a convincing reason to believe anything.

Nor is it what I did. Where did you read that. I said, "Neither many from the 37 nations that participated in the Iraq War," like your country.

Tony Blair has admitted he went in anyway for reasons that had nothing to do with the stated ones that would of justified it. He stops short of saying he lied, but obviously he did.

I'd love to get the quote on that. Your side tends to say people said one thing, then when you look at what people actually said, they - well, they just didn't say what you said they said. Maybe you have the Blair quote - I don't know. But, I'm certainly not going to take your word that Tony Blair "admitted he went in anyway fro reasons that had nothing to do with the stated ones that would of (sic) justified it." I'd need to see that.

But, the reality is there wasn't initially a civil war going on in Libya, there was unrest

Yeah ok whatever. You just keep telling yourself all these things, and maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will go away.

There wasn't. The stated reason for going in was the POTENTIAL for Qadafi to IN THE FUTURE fire on his own people.

Not really interested in this discussion any more so I wouldn't bother saying anything else. I get where you are coming from, trust me.

Typical - "I've said what I've got to say, so you don't bother responding - that way I get the last word on it." Right - gotcha. You should have said that up front, so that I didn't bother reading your screed before you then proclaimed your disinterest in the discussion.

[Aos Si]

I've said both were illegal but from technicalities involving veto powers or the lack of them so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me? Sure they were both wrong, and sure the justifications aren't all that strong. But we do know that in civil wars nothing is all that clear cut. I'd prefer the UN handled such things, it has after all mediated over 200 disputes, some dozens with successful conclusions, but no one seems to take it seriously so we are hamstrung.

Clearly under the charter you should consult the UNSC before going to war, when no threat is apparent. Clearly most countries don't believe the UN paper tiger is worth consulting so we have a mess.

It's kind of a waste of time talking about this in any situation because someone somewhere will always lie like a politician. Or play the legal Scheister such is the fucked up world we live in.

I don't feel the need to respond simply because nothing is going to change by arguing the toss anyway, whether its your mind, mine, or the mind of politicians. If human beings want war they will always find an excuse to have one regardless of the legal technicalities. The human race are idiots what can I say?

[Warren Dew]

Libya: Gaddafi government accepts truce plan, says Zuma

It's an interesting plan, or outline of a plan. If accepted by both sides, it strikes me that the plan would most likely lead to partition.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Libya: Gaddafi government accepts truce plan, says Zuma

It's an interesting plan, or outline of a plan. If accepted by both sides, it strikes me that the plan would most likely lead to partition.

Libya rebels reject AU truce plan.