Yes, we would kill Gaddafi:Defence Secretary admits tyrant is a 'legitimate target' (UK)

Daily Mail ^ | Last updated at 11:45 PM on 20th March 2011 | By Tim Shipman and Michael Seamark

[Eurotwit]

Britain is ready to launch a surgical strike to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi. Defence Secretary Liam Fox said yesterday he would sanction a ‘bunker buster’ attack on the Libyan dictator’s lair as long as civilian casualties could be avoided.

Dr Fox vowed to destroy the Libyan dictator’s entire military infrastructure as senior officials privately admitted they want to engineer regime change.

As Britain launched further strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles last night and RAF strike jets prepared for a second night of raids, fears grew of ‘mission creep’ in the military assault intended to enforce the United Nations resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya.

Three Cabinet ministers refused to rule out the eventual deployment of British ground troops, saying only that there are no plans to do so ‘at the moment’.

[driftless2]

Oh, we have plenty of reasons to assassinate him, over two hundred reasons I believe. The question is: what follows this lunatic?

[FreeReign]

I think there is a war crimes court already in existence, run by the UN and the third world countries, that is unless you have gotten it changed. But the no fly zone came from the UN, if you party with the fat lady you need to dance with her.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I however, don't agree with it.

I don't recall the Brits, the US or any country giving up their sovereignty to the UN.

[kanawa]

Now we try to assasinate gaddafi, next is boots on the ground???

Talk of it up here....

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon...

In an interview Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Cannon said Canada is "open to all options" in responding to the Libyan crisis.

When asked by host Kathleen Petty if that includes "boots on the ground," Cannon said if that were required to "protect citizens that are being literally murdered by [Libyan leader Moammar] Gadhafi, that's what the resolution calls for."
link

I'm liking this less and less....
A no fly zone morphing overnight into much greater involvement.
And most important...Who are we helping??? Who is going to take control if G'daffy loses?

[darkside321]

Thanks for the link.
It´s unbelievable whats going on now.
48 hours ago there was a NO Fly Zone.
Now we are in an all out war against libya
and it looks like plans for a current bloddy occupation
are allready made.

[SunkenCiv]

When JFK was first in office, one of the newsmagazines (US News, Time, or Newsweek, I dunno, probably US News) had a head-to-head comparison of how much time Ike had spent on the golf course compared with JFK.

[plain talk]

Compared to assasinations of the leaders of NK, Iran, Venezuela we have no reason to focus on taking out this particular leader. And as you say we have no idea what follows him. No congressional authorization. They should start impeachment hearings in the House.

[Candor7]

I like yer style.

MAY QADAFFI WIN! May he live to kill many more Al Qaeda and Muslin Brotherhooders.

Allah Shakalakalacka Akbar ! LOL.

[Monorprise]

I want to kill Gaddafi too, the man Bombed a British town,as well as murdering British subjects and American citizens.

Anyone old enough to remember knows Gaddafi owes a debt to our country’s, and revenge is a dish best served cold.

Bomb the shit out of Gaddafi, see how much he like having a 747 worth of destructive force crashing into his town murdering his friends and family.

[Vanders9]

It’s a score that could do with being settled, but I doubt it has influenced current British thinking. Nations can’t afford to hold grudges. International diplomacy is pragmatism.

[Vanders9]

That, of course, is the $64,000 question. If we do nothing, then Gaddaffi will crush the uprising, killing lots of people in the process. If we intervene, then Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda aligned powers may take over. OTOH, if we intervene we might be able to influence who takes over. We may be able to oust Gaddaffi and cut out Al-Qaeda as well.

[Vanders9]

The Brits and the French were always prepared to go alone on this, but they need at least tacit approval from the White house. Neither will risk another suez. So, if you want to know why the massacres were allowed to go on for a month, ask your US State Dept. They were the ones umming and ahhing over a no-fly zone.

[Vanders9]

Yes the UN only authorised a no-fly zone. The problem with your argument is that s no fly zone effectively means a regime change.

The intention of a no fly zone is to prevent Gaddaffi using his air force to bomb innocent civilians - but although that goes on (largely because libyan pilots arent super accurate or discrminatory as to weapons release) the prime target of Gaddaffis airforce is the Rebels. Moreover, in order to maintain a no-fly zone we have to keep our own aircraft over the region, which means we have to take out Libyan ground based air defences as well, and probably the troops assigned to protect them, or we will not be able to enforce a no-fly zone. Make no mistake about it, a no-fly zone effectively means we are backing the rebels against Gaddaffi, which means regime change however you look at it. Assuming of coure the rebels win. We'd better hope so, cos if Gaddaffi manages to crush the upsrising without all his close air support he isn't going to be very pleased with the ones who prevented it from flying.