Ian Bell ponders an appropriate response to the carnage in Libya ("Stay out, but give Libyans the means to oust Gaddafi", The Herald, March 2).

He rejects both military intervention and the idea that we should stand idly by; instead, he argues that "equipping the rebellion is perfectly reasonable, and certainly feasible."

I'm not sure who the "we" are who, he thinks, should provide weaponry to those fighting to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi's regime. If it's the Western powers, principally the US and UK, then his arguments against direct military intervention apply. And in any event, I'm not sure that either the UK or the US has sufficient ordnance to spare to support one side in a bloody civil war.

But it's at the practical level that Ian Bell's suggestion falls apart.

Modern weapons are complex and can't be operated effectively without substantial training. Firing even small arms (rifles, machine guns and the like) needs practice; training a group of individuals to work as a unit in combat takes, at best, weeks. And small arms are almost useless against tanks, attack helicopters and strike aircraft. If Ian Bell's policy was adopted, it would amount to an invitation to mass suicide for the Libyan rebels.

However, I do agree with him when he disparages the sabre rattling of David Cameron and Hillary Clinton. British and American forces could be deployed against Libya only under a clear, unambiguous mandate from the United Nations. That much is indeed clear after Iraq. The UN has a duty to protect the ordinary people of Libya and it should do so.

Time waits for no man. You also report that the European Union is to hold a special summit on Libya and North Africa at the end of next week ("Britain to step up Libyan refugee aid effort", The Herald, March 2). That's far too late, and many more Libyans will die while the major powers ponder, analyse and debate. The world's leaders have to step up to the plate now. Acting collectively through the UN, they need to send a clear message to Gaddafi that the game's up and that he and his supporters will be held responsible if they don't go now.

If such a threat is to have any credibility, it has to be backed up by a commitment to use force. That, of course, is an enormous gamble, but one that I believe is worth taking, for the sake of the Libyan people.

Doug Maughan,

52 Menteith View, Dunblane.

I agree with Duncan McFarlane (Letters, March 2) that we should be sceptical about political events in countries we look to for fuel. The deserts of North Africa have soaked up enough British blood in the past to convince me we must keep out. We have already proved we cannot afford the modern technological resources necessary to sustain a winning action in Afghanistan or even provide quantities of effective armoured vehicles to protect our troops.

While in Kuwait recently, Prime Minister David Cameron said: "Across the Arab world, aspirations are stirring which have laid dormant." One does not need to look far to see who is doing the stirring.

Showing no aversion to civil unrest in another country is cheaper I expect than interested intervention but I suspect the outcome of the current rising along the southern Mediterranean coast will be unpredictable as these events often reach a stage where external influence is lost. Be the West guilty or innocent of any involvement or encouragement, we will still end up embracing whosoever will anoint us with oil.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

Steven Camley's cartoon on Wednesday said it all. How exactly is David Cameron proposing to operate a "no fly zone" over Libya? He has decimated the airforce, decommissioned the aircraft carriers, and the only aircraft that could operate from them, and, oh, the Nimrods. Say no more.

Steve Barnet,

1 Broom Park, Gargunnock.

As the usual suspects demand yet another Western military adventure in the Middle East, the calm voice of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has asked for sanity and restraint.

The former European of the Year said in a speech to the Turkish-German Chamber of Commerce in Hanover that NATO intervention in Libya is "out of the question".

Yet, in spite of the fact that we are still mired in Afghanistan, the Pentagon is deploying naval and air forces around Libya while Hillary Clinton is trying to drum up support.

Surely this is the moment to listen to one of our few real friends in the Islamic world and shake off the global delusions we inherited from Tony Blair.

Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.

Is the Prime Minister's proposal for a "no fly zone" over Libya, geo-politics or ego-politics?

Bill McLean,

5 Rosemill Court,

Newmills, Dunfermline.

It seems paradoxical that while David Cameron should be alluding to Britain taking part in a no-fly zone over Libya, his Government should be announcing massive cuts to our armed forces including the RAF.

There is no doubt the previous Labour administrations left a massive hole in the defence budget but how far should the cuts go? Surely large bonuses to civil servants and Ministry of Defence backroom staff should be axed before front-line forces' numbers are savaged. Also the shambolic procurement process should be overhauled.

If Britain wants to safeguard its citizens overseas, it requires a credible presence on the world stage. Otherwise we will need to rely more on the Americans or our 'allies' in Europe!

Bob MacDougall,

Oxhill,

Kippen, Stirlingshire.