Libya

One UN resolution authorises action from the air in Libya but the other, involving Syria, is a mere call to behave better.

What is happening? Why could one lead us to military intervention and the other be nothing more than mere words?

It is obvious that a geopolitical game is going on.

Arab countries want to punish Libya, ostensibly for its bad behaviour, but Syria is virtually left alone.

It seems to me that protection of civilian populations is given as a justification when it suits the power brokers to do so.

I hope that there is another debate in the House of Commons on the actions our service personnel may be involved in, and a much better explanation about what, to me, look like double standards.

G Bulmer, Billingham.

WE should lift the arms embargo on the transitional Libyan council.

We should be supplying the rebels with Milan anti-tank rockets.

The UK could donate armoured ambulances, along with tons of UN food and medical supplies, to take away the wounded civilians and combatants to hospitals.

The Kenya and Nigeria governments could donate their Vickers main battle tanks.

The UK and India could modernise, reinvent and reintroduce the Vijayanta. This tank was once as successful as the Centurion during the Cold War era.

If we are to get rid of Colonel Gadaffi we are going to have to arm the transitional Libyan Army (TLA).

The allies could do this by supplying them with cheaper soviet Cold War T-55s, T-72s, BMP-2s and US M60 battle tanks.

It would be cheaper giving them equipment we no longer use than money we don’t have.

Countries like Kuwait, France and Egypt are supplying them with a small quantity of military hardware.

We either arm and train the TLA or we either get bogged down in another land war like Iraq and Afghanistan.

We cannot let the Libyan people down but Libya is going to be a tough campaign.

Alistair Rutter, Bishop Auckland.