DO NOT believe that rebels are overtaking Tripoli

On a side note presumably for Gaddafi to still be there after 5 months he must have some pretty strong support, and presumably people would only support him if he's a good leader. If the reports that he ordered fire on everyday citizens was true surely tripoli would have turned against him already? Maybe what happened was that he had the equivalence of the london riots in libya except instead of the youths using petrol bombs and rocks they immediately started with guns.. and so instead of using his police force to use rubber bullets and water canons gaddafi was forced to use weapons instead. Thus providing for the conditions for the US to engage in operation take gaddafi out which has been a plan on the back burner for decades. We'll never know for sure....

Your argument seems to be based on presumption and so has little substance. Anyone can make any point about anything using assumption and rhetoric. Sure you can have an opinion, but opinion should be based on facts.

Regardless of whether his argument is based on rhetoric it is amuysing the way everyone in this thread has offered no real legitimate rebuttal to the numeorus questions in regards to the approach NATO has taken. Why is ethnic cleansing being allowed to take place unabated? Why is NATO fraternizing with known terrorist groups? Why is NATO in a country with a reasonable track record for economic and social development? If military intervention is a response to violence against citizens why did NATO not take trips to Bahrain, Yemen, or Syria? Who are the national transitional council? Why has an 20 year exile of Libya been appointed as its leader?

Interesting you criticize mrbranson for having an argument not based on facts, when yours has none either. Moron.

1 Source as to how wide spread this supposed ethnic cleansing is?

2 Again Source they are actually terrorist groups and that it is not just "flickers" of groups like al Qaeda as has already been acknowledged by NATO.

3 Nato is involved in this country because Gaddafi has been butchering his people. Not really sure why you think it is ok for a country to murder its civilians just because it is fairly stable> I assume you would then support the right of David Cameron to order the army to start shooting protesters and the rest of the world to just smile and wave?

4 Nato did not get involved in those nations for a number of reasons. Firstly it would be illegal, there is no UN mandate to go into these nations nor would China and Russia support it, they would just Veto such a resolution. Secondly the people of these countries have not asked for Nato to help, Thirdly even if they did the use of air assets in these nations would be fairly useless due to their geography. Fourth there is no armed rebellion in Syria to support nor in Bahrain where the protests have died down. Yemen is a hornets nest and in complete chaos, bar a full ground invasion we can do nothing for it. Fifth Western nations (and we all know it would be the West bearing the brunt of any intervention) do not have the resources to be fighting 3 or more operations at once. We are struggling as it is to fight in Libya and Afghanistan.

5 Various defectors and figures who has so far written a constitution and have a plan that involves stabilising Libya and setting up elections that they have agreed not to run in. How this turns out remains to be seen.

1. http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/ Isnt it rather unbelievable that google searches bring up hardly any sources from mainstream outlets. Google it for yourself.

2. Once again I ask you to refer to my previous point and the WSJ articles which commented on the US allegiance with Misrata fighters with known terrorist links.

3. Assad's government have been butchering people in Syria, why arent NATO there? Even moreso the fact that is well documented that government there has done it before killing tens of thousands in uprisings 50 years ago. Same in Yemen too. Why exactly is NATO not there? Why did it take so long for the Obama administration to issue an actual strong condemnation of the killings by security forces taking place

4. Bull**** there is an organized resistance in Syria and this has been suggested of numerous times by their own government. It still doesnt negate the fact that the west were propogating the violence by arming the "rebel movement" (which was constructed by Nato as these pockets of rebels were being trained by US assets and being given sophistated weaponry. Direct contravention of UN law.

5. An election doesnt mean **** if all of the candidates are pawns. Many of these defectors have sought asylum in the UK, hardly a neutral party on the matter

What kind of bs response is that to a perfectly reasonable statement. clearly you have nothing reasonable and intelligent to say