France wants to give arms to the "rebels".

[Shagbark Hickory]

France wants to arm the rebels.
UK doesn't want to rule out that idea.

Russia has been very outspoken against this and there is some resistance amongst the coalition countries.

As you probably know historically this is how we oust regimes in the middle east. We give guns and money to rebels to overthrow their tyrant. Then when they become tyranical then we give their rebels guns and money to overthrow them.

I guess technically this isn't "putting troops on the ground".

As concerns mount over what ties some of these rebels have, expect a lively debate.
Oh wait. We probably won't get to debate. Nevermind.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. I think you probably mean the French foreign minister

who would be Alain Juppé. Or possibly the French President (Sarkozy). Which is not any different to what Hillary Clinton has said, or what William Hague, the British foreign secretary, has said (as reported yesterday).

[Shagbark Hickory]

2. I guess they both said something about it. FM yesterday and PM today.

I'm having trouble finding much about it online but it's on the tv.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. You might also look at this:

Britain agrees with the United States that the UN has provided a legal basis to supply arms to rebel forces in Libya in limited circumstances, David Cameron and William Hague have told the House of Commons.

But the prime minister and the foreign secretary indicated Britain was in no rush to ship arms to the rebels as they cautioned that ministers would act with "extreme care" before making any decision.
more

Are you sure you mean France?

(Also: The Guardian liveblog, Al Jazeera's liveblog or the BBC's liveblog are probably better sources for up-to-date info that TV news. Especially US TV news.)

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. I have a feeling we're going to be hearing a lot more about this in the days to come.

This is like afganistan all over again.

[Fool Count]

6. At least the rebels in Afghanistan were competent

warriors battle-hardened through years of fighting fist the soviets and then the Taliban even before getting any arms and air support from NATO.
They were also experienced in administering the territories they controlled, thus confirming that they indeed commanded strong popular support.
And even then more than 100 thousand foreign troops are still required to keep them in power with final outcome yet very much in doubt. That's just
because their support wasn't uniformly overwhelming around the country. With the Libyan rebels we are not even sure they have any popular support
at all outside of Benghazi. We do know now that they are completely incompetent militarily. Incompetence aside, they probably don't have the numbers
either. For all we know, there may be no more than a thousand men under arms in the rebel army, fewer yet of them with any prior military experience.
The only way to get rid of Qaddafi without a full-scale military invasion was via continuing relentless popular demonstrations, as they did in Tunisia
and Egypt. Then sooner or later the military would have abandoned Qaddafi and refused to shoot protesters, as now happening in Yemen. What the hell
did they have to seize the weapons and start the civil war for? Now they are inviting foreign troops as their only hope of salvation. Is that the way to
gain popular support? I don't think so. Even if NATO soldiers come, dislodge Qaddafi and install the rebel government in Tripoli, pro-Qaddafi elements
will have enough weapons, money and support in neighboring countries to keep the insurgency going for years. If the goal was to turn the most
advanced and prosperous African country into another Afghanistan or Somalia, congratulations to the rebels and their foreign backers on their
perfectly executed strategy. Doing it on the doorstep of Europe, thus making it easier for potential millions of refugees to cross, was a particularly
nice touch.

[Fuzz]

5. Hannity just said that we are arming them already.

(was flipping through)

Now I'm listening to the Suicidal Tendencies.