The post you are reporting:
That last question is a good one. The rebels have been receiving shipments of arms from the Egyptian army, according to the New York Journal.
If the rebels actually accept a cease-fire, is still open, for until now they have not done so, even though they were offered many offers by the Libyan government since the upheaval broke out in February.
They were offered talks, but they turned them all down. Also because their leader (or one of their leaders), a former top Libyan minister, did not want any talks. (!!!) As it is now, the rebels might find it hard, very hard, to continue their war and their no compromise policies; indeed, if they attack, that would put them in a position of breaking any agreement that the UN would consider essential.
If the rebels engage in desert terrain where there are no civilians, by launching an attack, or a series of attacks, then the armed forces implementing the UN resolution could not legally do anything to intervene, if the combat remains between armed forces away from civilian areas.
if the rebels attack a town, this would put them in the liability of being attacked by the armed forces implementing the UN resolution. Very unlikely!
If the UN resdolution does not envisage what would happen if rebels attack a town in Libya, then it is a one-sided resolution. If the rebels attack government forces in desert terrain, where there are no civilians, and the international forces attack Libyan government soldiers or infrastructure, then such international intervention would be illegal.
But, because Mrs. Hillary Clinton is openly publisicing that Col. Gedaffi has to go, I am wondering how long it might take before something happens that is totally out of bounds of the UN resolution.
Anyway, if the rebels had reached Tripoli, in their military offensive 2 weeks ago, we would probably have witnessed their military defeat in Tripoli. It so happened that they were defeated before reaching Sirte.
Now Barry must explain to me the difference between Libyans and Libyans each fighting with passion for their cause, and tell me why I should be in favour of Britain becoming randomly involved on one side.
Once again, a military intervention has been spun off without any cause, any logical explanation, as to why the hell our Country has to get involved in it!
