There are few people in this world who would defend Gaddafi as a sane and viable leader of Libya; but I think there would be even less that would see the logic in the U.S selling guns to someone as psychotic as him and then parading about as world police.

It's the equivalent of a sheriff giving an outlaw a six-shooter and then acting surprised when he starts popping off the town folk. 

The second one U.S plane gets shot down by one U.S surface-to-air missile, all the military big wigs should get together and make a decision once and for all - "we have to stop shooting at tyrants we've given guns to".

What do you think about Libya? What do you think about the obvious contradictions in U.S foreign policy and how do you think they should be addressed? Tell us and remember...Disqus!  . . read more

What do you think about her thoughts? Should the West be fighting such a war? Tell us and remember...Disqus!   . . read more

As well as having the same stature as Napoleon, it turns out that Nicolas Sarkozy has the same grand ambitions of French global supremacy as that famous French dictator.

In recent days Sarkozy has been the first head of state to recognise the Libyan rebels as the official government of Libya and now France has been the first state to bomb Gaddafi.

If we see Nicolas riding on a camel along the Nile with some Egyptian artefacts under arm we'll know that his transition to Napoleon is complete; pity no-one will tell him that France is almost completely irrelevant to world affairs.  

Are you from le grande nation of Europe? Are you finding Sarkozy's new found assertiveness hilarious? Tell us....and remember Disqus!

  . . read more

I always found it strange that when Saddam Hussein was being compared to Satan at the onset of the Iraq war, that they CIA didn't just pop him off and be done with it - surely they had the skills to do it?

So again, with Gaddafi having proved himself psychotic and willing to kill his people; why can't a sniper on the roof or a drone in the sky explode the man that's apparently at the head of everything?

It says to me two things; either the CIA isn't the all encompassing scary spy organisation that could kill anyone in the world at any moment, or they don't really want Gaddafi dead.

In all likelihood it's the former; the U.S probably does want Gaddafi dead, but when you find out that a full 75% of the world's oil is in the hands of state governments - it makes sense why the U.S might not want to create a vacuum at the top.

The need for stability might overrun their desire for democracy. 

Do you think this a fair assumption to make? Or do you think the hesitancy to put in ground forces and really commit to this war might have more to do with Iraq and Afghanistan? Tell us and remember...Disqus!

  . . read more

With the Gaddafi regime on the verge of collapse, the world is waiting for the money shot - an image of a shackled or dead dictator paraded through the streets as a lowly criminal.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard wants to see more, she wants to see the man brought before an international criminal court; a nice thought but looking through the history of fallen dictators, let's just say "justice" is pretty unlikely to happen.

Dead, deposed or distant is all you really have to hope for, so let's hope too much blood isn't spilled in getting one of these results.

   . . read more

After Tunisia erupted in popular protests, pundits all over the world were writing about the event as if it was a trigger-point for similar rebellions to take place in similarly repressive dictatorships all over the Middle-East.

I like many was sceptical.

Pundits love to heap significance on an event as if it's world changing or the start of something special - most often they're wrong or are connecting dots that don't exist. 

It seems though that this time their predictions were right; Bahrain is splintering and the once fighting fit Gaddafi is lying on the ropes - looking as if he'll have to throw in the towel like Ben Ali and Mubarak. 

It seems like the implications of these protests can't be overstated. 

  . . read more

In the world of international politics or law it's dangerous to do anything without the risk of setting a precedent that others will use as an argument for similar actions to be taken in similar situations. 

As Laurent Gbagbo the disputed President of the Ivory Coast is captured by French forces and as Gaddafi looks close to collapse, a precedent is being set - repressive dictators that inspire mass rebellion will be met by the West.

The question we have to ask though is whether this seemingly positive precedent will spread elsewhere? 

Bahrain tried but was too close to the Saudi sphere, North Korea is too crackpot for the West to get involved, Zimbabwe seems off the radar and Iran and Saudi Arabia seem too big and too ruthless to be threatened. 

So what's the lesson?

If you're a brutal dictator hope that your crazy or crazily rich enough to stay in power?  . . read more

As the UN passes a resolution to Impose Sanctions on Libya, the question we have to ask is what's the point?

Sanctions are designed to show international condemnation to a state but primarly they're designed to cripple a regime by stopping the availability of important resources or capital.

Yet, an important factor is whether the state cares about condemnation and whether those in power care enough about the welfare of the citizens to ensure that a lack of availabilty to socially valued resources doesn't continue.

Judging Gaddafi it seems he falls into the category of psychopathic, egotistical narcissist; which makes it difficult to believe that Libyans' welfare is at the top of the agenda.

Might make the only victims of these Sanctions the Libyans themselves.

  . . read more