Gadaffi Fried Chicken

A few hours into UN Resolution 1973 and a nervous Libyan apparatchick appears on TV to bravely declare a ceasefire.  Whatever he means by this, it does mean the end. The Libyan people can now call the government's bluff and take to the streets again. In theory, they could now put down their guns and take up their banners once more, and their campaign could restart with renewed power. The people of Bengazi ecstatically aiming fireworks and bullets at the stars last night knew what Resolution 1973 meant because they knew their enemy. They knew that a loss of face on this scale is fatal to him and excrutiating to his loyalists. And so the people know that they now have a future again.
It's a shame that some can't seem to share this optimism and confidence. Especially those with a long and worthy history of opposing the Oil Wars, Zionism, and all aspects of colonial corporate imperialism. The case against 1973 seems to go: 'What about the Palestinians? If Israel can defy UN resolutions and commit crimes against humanity, why shouldn't Gadaffi?'
 While it is wrong that there seems to be one law for Israel and another for every other country, that doesn't mean that nobody should obey the law. Gadaffi was a criminal, and had to be stopped. The fact that other criminals escape justice is not an argument against laws. And in fact, the Whipping of Colonel Chickenpants might well mean that Israel is now one step nearer to being brought into line.
Personally, I'm delighted that Cameron and the rest of the crew finally agreed with me. I never agreed with them. People should have more confidence in their principles,  and not define themselves in opposition to the failings and crimes of others. The pacifist left in Britain is behaving exactly like the England football team, constantly tinkering with its tactics in response to the opposition, instead of simply playing its natural game, which when unleashed, is one of the most winning formulas around.