So let’s clear up the matter, Daphne.

I am against Gaddafi. This started when he came to celebrate the end of the military base in Malta on the 31st March 1979. It didn’t take long to prove me right, because on the 15th October of that same year he attacked our oil rig Saipem Due with two gun boats.

What could Malta do in that situation? Pack up and leave because we did not have the ‘punch’.

We all know that Malta has a small army which does not even have a general as its highest rank we only have a brigadier. So actually we have a brigade.

We can denounce Gaddafi as much as you want .But would this stop the violence? My answer is a definite ‘no’, and if Gaddafi stays on, or is not brought to justice, everyone would be worse off, especially us.

Do I want to get rid of him? Not even the Americans are saying that they want to get rid of him!

[Daphne – Actually, they are. I quote Hillary Clinton: “The ultimate aim of action in Libya is the removal of Muammar Gaddafi.”]

Are you expecting tiny Malta which sometimes does not even appear on the European map, to put all its assets at the disposal of the coalition to bomb our neighbour? I would not be ready to put my fellow countryman in that danger. We cannot retaliate when we’re left alone, because we don’t have that ‘punch’.

[Daphne – You’re safe now, John. Today the news broke that Gaddafi’s air force has been 100% disabled.]

What is Malta doing? Malta is doing more than many other countries are doing, and permitting the coalition raiders to pass through our air space.

[Daphne – That’s disingenuous, John. Through which other country’s airspace could they have flown to get to Tripoli? More to the point, what would Malta’s excuse have been for saying No? That we only have one airspace and we need it for civilian planes? Come on. What sort of crazy assholes would we have had to be to say ‘Don’t fly through our airspace’?]

The Maltese government cannot give more than it is giving in the circumstances. There could be things which are discussed behind closed doors and which are too sensitive to divulge. What if intelligence says that Gaddafi’s Scuds with mustard gas are pointed at Malta?

[Daphne – Then that same intelligence would know where they, and would have got rid of them by now. Or is that too obvious.]

Even America is feeling hot under the collar for taking a leading role in the preliminary attacks which are taking place in this very moment, and NATO does not want to get involved.

[Daphne – Correction. The United States is feeling pressure from electors back home. It is not feeling ‘hot under the collar’ because it can’t cope. If even you, 200 miles away from Tripoli, think Gaddafi is not your problem, then imagine how somebody in Minneapolis St Paul or San Diego feels about it.]

You are not looking at the whole picture. You point at the Western ‘civilised’ world to how you think it is seeing us, and forget the Arab world, which is mostly Muslim, perceives these attacks as attacks on Islam, and Malta is not part of the bombing.

[Daphne – That’s not so. From what I perceive through the international news, half of the Middle East currently seems to be engaged in behaving in such a way as to replicate the intervention in Libya – deliberately.]

There is no clear-cut solution to this crisis and no one knows how long it will take to solve it, if ever this can be solved.

This is not the 1943 Xewkija airstrip to invade Sicily you want. You want to put our ONLY airport at the disposal of this military alliance to stop this ruthless murderer from killing anyone in sight. I beg to differ, I’m not crazy.

[Daphne – Nor am I, and I take exception at the insult. You clearly don’t get the point, do you. It is not the refusal to grant use of our airport to people who are fighting Malta’s battles that people like me object to, but the utter ILL-JUDGED CHURLISHNESS with which the prime minister announced his absolute and unconditional refusal. Also, you may have failed to notice that at first the excuse was neutrality, then at the press conference no reason for refusal was given but neutrality was suggested despite the UN Security Council resolution, and after a weekend in which the government appears to have received very many messages of disgust and dismay, by Sunday the reason had changed. No longer neutrality, but ‘our airport is a civilian one’. Well, that still leaves Grand Harbour, doesn’t it. And our Armed Forces, should they be needed. But sadly, people don’t think and accept everything because it accords with their desire not to get involved.]

Ciccio – Indeed, the resolution covers neither ground troops, nor regime change. But they are paving the way to justify assassinating Gaddafi as a means towards accomplishing their mandate.

I have just been watching LJBC TV (Libyan state TV) and they were showing thousands of volunteers gathered around Gaddafi’s compound. The numbers dwindled later in the evening. I have no reason to believe these are not volunteers.

Do not underestimate Gaddafi’s support. It’s their paradigm, constructed by the Jamahirija media. As is usual the case, it is mostly those who have actually suffered that oppose the regime, the rest live the illusion.

Libyan state TV looked like TVM had we again been attacked by Suleiman’s fleet. The people have gathered around the only leader they know.

Any loss of civilian lives is the responsibility of the coalition forces. They entrusted themselves with the job, now they’ll have to show they’re capable of performing.

Do not think for a second that Gaddafi will be ousted by air power alone. Barring a ground invasion (Obama says no ground troops, Cameron says no ground troops YET), it is the armed rebels themselves who will have to do the job. That’s going to be messy.

And would foreign troops solve the problem? Well, yes, if you think Iraq’s problems were anywhere solved. Ask the Iraqi majority.

It’s always best to check what the other media are saying. It might not change one’s view, but it helps to evaluate the situation.

This is Russia Today on ‘the day after’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp0rIPszSQ4

‘Shades’, Kevvy? You mean like the one your friend wears?

Kev, since my position is to agree with the PM, which I understand is your position also, let me help you out a bit here. I am now risking getting in the line of fire!
The argument to be made against the map above is not one based on a hypothetical head count.

It has to be based on the title of the article “Attacco a Gheddafi…”

Among other matters, the UN resolution:

1. “Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians” (Article 1).

2. “Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.” (Article 4)

3. With respect to the no-fly zone, “Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above.” (Article 8).

I asked before, and it is now clear to me, that the UN resolution does not request the resignation or removal of Gaddafi or his government. It does not authorise an attack on Gaddafi, but merely the protection of civilians.

Not that I personally will be worried if there is an attack on Gaddafi. But there is now a serious risk that Gaddafi will surround himself with civilians, and attacks on Gaddafi will lead to loss of civilian lives, which is diametrically contrary to the resolution.

I would personally be very upset if a war plane from Luqa dropped bombs on civilians in Tripoli or anywhere else.

This all said, an operation to protect the civilians will lead to the eventual removal of Gaddafi. But now I am starting to think that this may be another long battle.

The BBC World Service has never shown Malta ever, not in peace and not in war.

So, La Stampa, if they did it on purpose can stick it where the sun don’t shine, but I am sure that the double ‘LL’ did us in.

I really hate it when Maltese themselves find every opportunity to make our small country even smaller in the minds of foreigners. We often complain that many people around Europe (and the world) don’t know Malta exists and that we should use all means to make them aware of our (small) country.

These negative comments will surely help a lot and screw up Joseph’s tourist opportunity plans at the same time.

Give everybody a break, will you?

Apparently, Berlusconi had to make a choice. It was either the prostitutes or Gaddafi.

Gaddafi is going to be proud. It took the Americans 25 years to demolish that building.

Prosit, John, but don’t expect to ever be right on this blog.

You are not consistent, you see. Here, it is either black or white – no shades, please, and less sense, for that would ruffle their war feathers.

To be fair to Kev, he said it was a “hypothetical” head count. How could someone in Brussels build an argument on a hypothetical head count?