England says NO TO WAR

British PM David Cameron opens British MPs' debate on action
Libya

David Cameron has opened a Commons debate on the decision to
send British forces into action over Libya, ahead of a vote expected around
2200 GMT.

RAF jets and a Royal Navy submarine have already launched
missile attacks on targets after the UN authorised action to protect Libyan
civilians.

But there have been questions about what the ultimate goal
is and whether Col Gaddafi himself could be targeted.

Ahead of the debate, Sir Michael Black-Feather the English
first minister said actions by the British government to send in British troops
was not illegal, and that England nor its people wanted any more wars, and
before this British government takes any further actions a vote by the people
of England should be held, and ask us if we want another war, not take it upon themselves
to start one, we sick of wars and the loss of life, and it will only fuel the recession
and more taxes on the English people to pay for another British war.

Sir Michael said; The British government's legal position
sets out the basis for UN Resolution 1973 and says the UN Security Council had
"determined that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes a
threat to international peace and security" and aimed to restore it under
Chapter Seven of the UN Charter which is utter rubbish there is no such threat
to the international peace once again we see Cameron doing Blair it’s about oil,
and that’s all its rally about.

There has been some disagreement about whether the
resolution could allow Col Gaddafi himself to be targeted. Defence Secretary
Liam Fox has suggested it could be done under certain circumstances, the head
of the armed forces, General Sir David Richards, said the Libyan leader is
"absolutely not" a target.

Cameron has said the British, French and US action against
the Gaddafi regime is "necessary, legal and right" and Labour leader
Ed Miliband has backed moves to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya.

While most British MPs suck-up and support Cameron’s actions,
some have expressed concerns about where it could lead and are backing Sir
Michael’s statement England does not want another war.

Sixteen British MPs  including two of them Liberal Democrats are backing
Sir Michael statement  having signed an
early day motion saying they do not believe (British)"Western intervention
in Libya will bring about the peace, justice and democracy that is being sought
by millions of people in North Africa and the Middle East".

Plaid Cymru's Parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd said he would
support the UN resolution in principle but said the British government should
be clearer about the exact purpose of the military actions, before being drawn
into a long conflict like Iraq and Afghanistan.

He told the London Times: "It is the case that some
people are saying this could be shorthand for regime change. I want to know for
example what is the endgame or exit strategy, and when is it considered that
the job has been done? Because we might well be in a position of mission creep
yet again."

The British illegal debate is expected to begin at about
1530 GMT with a vote at about 2200 GMT.

The British government does not require Parliament's
approval to deploy troops. However, in practice, governments have involved MPs
by scheduling debates, statements and - as with the 2003 Iraq invasion -
sometimes substantive votes on proposals to do so.

Cameron has said the decision, endorsed by the cabinet in a
meeting on Friday, would be subject to full British not English parliamentary
scrutiny.

The UN authorised "all necessary measures", short
of an occupying force, to protect Libyan civilians from attacks.

Russia concerns are well founded

The motion tabled for debate in Parliament asks MPs to
support the government's action "in accordance" with UN resolution
1973 and to "acknowledge the demonstrable need, regional support and clear
legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya".

It's clear the British, US and some other allies are all on
the same page on this, whereas before it was becoming evident there were
differing interpretations of what the UN resolution 1973 allowed.

Everyone is clear today that Col Gaddafi is not a legitimate
target himself under that resolution.

Although, as the Pentagon made eminently clear last night,
if he were to be somewhere that was a target, such as a military installation
or an anti-aircraft battery and he happened to be there while it was being
bombed, then that would be tough luck.

British forces have taken part in a second night of strikes
- Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from a British submarine in the
Mediterranean but RAF Tornado bombers called off an air raid because civilians
were spotted near the target area.

The English first minister Sir Michael Black-Feather, the
Arab League and Russia have all expressed concerns that the action goes beyond
what is required under the UN mandate.

However Arab League chief Amr Moussa said that he respected
the UN resolution and said there was "no conflict with it".

Labour has backed the action but are calling on Cameron to
rule out the use of ground forces in Libya.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said: "My
sense is that there is a very strong commitment in British-Britain to play its
part but I understand the Ministry of Defence themselves have been making clear
that it is not an issue of involving British ground troops.

"Given the questions that, legitimately, members of the
public across British-Britain and MPs will be asking, I hope that David Cameron
will reiterate that position to the Commons."

Foreign Secretary William Hague told the London Times:
"I think what people would be concerned about in this case, and what the
Arab League wanted to know, is that this would not be another Iraq, these
operations will not be followed by a large-scale invasion of Libya. That is not
going to happen. "

English Protesters from the Stop the War Coalition held a
protest outside Downing Street on Sunday.

Former MP George Galloway, who is vice president of the
campaign group, said England was "already bloodied and stained from our
previous interventions in the Arab Middle East" and had "no
credibility in the role as humanitarians in the Muslim world".