That is precisely what I meant. If the present minority (Gaddafi’s) oppresses and tortures the majority, what will the majority do when they will take over power!!!

In the meantime, the minority (read Gaddafi) has and continues to oppress, torture and kill the majority. Is this acceptable to you?

If you can read between the lines you should be able to deduce that Gaddafi’s time is up. Nobody is saying it out aloud, but all actions taking place are tightening the noose around his neck and also making it very difficult for him to operate.

Even his ground units at the edge of cities are being hit, and soon they shall be short of food, ammo, fuel, and replacement troops, and that is when his world will implode. All this has been possible because the use of force has been mandated. So it is about time we realise that we have new neighbours who have every right to be where they are. A new dawn heralds a new beginning, bringing what it may.

@Albert Farrugia

Yesterday, I politely asked your opinion on how to approach and resolve this crisis without military means. I understand that you might have missed my query. Hopefully, Corinne’s comment above will elicit a reply from you.

Allow me to ask another question especially after reading your comment below Ranier Fsadni’s opinion piece on the Times of Malta.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110324/opinion/a-bad-week-for-neutrality

Do you believe that Gaddafi’s regime should be ousted from its position of power in Libya and brought in front of the International Criminal Court?

Had I wanted to denigrate the action I would have stated my objections plainly and clearly but I regret our country is not being part of it as a matter of fact.

What I am concerned about is who gets allowed to come and stay here indefinitely after Gaddafi is toppled and the new leaders turn out to be just as bad.

But yes, this is not the most pressing issue at the moment. We should all focus on knocking Gaddafi off his perch and minimising the loss of lives. That can be dealt with later.

You’re not asking the unaskable, but your questions are not being answered by mealy-mouthed analysts (present company excluded).

So let’s unshackle the vocab and talk straight:

If the rebels capture or kill Gaddafi, and put in place their own regime, a good number of pro-Gaddafis will be killed. That’s the simplest way of putting it. Some will be shot on the spot, and others will suffer for a few days at the business end of electrodes and drill bits, before being killed.

This is a strange little war, in that the real results are far more beneficial to Europe than the stated aims, contrary to, say, Kosovo. Gaddafi operated with impunity for 42 years. That impunity has been destroyed.

It is incredibly disingenuous to state that we go to war over the human rights of some oppressed people. And I believe it is immoral too. War is the guarantor of national interest, and should be waged in the national interest.

Now, to put it plainly and callously, the plight of the average Libyan is of no concern to Europe. But the stranglehold of Gaddafi certainly is.

Seen in that light, any action which destroys Gaddafi’s power is positive, and morally and politically justified.

This is why Europe wouldn’t go to war to “liberate” Syria, for instance, or Bahrain. Their dictatorships have an infinitesimal effect on European interests.

What ‘other action’ would you take?

Please don’t say ‘sanctions. We can already see where those have led.