UNLIKE Saddam though, Ghadafi has committed an act of terrorism on British soil, he's a f/ucking war criminal who should've been dealt with 20-odd years ago IMO.... <_<

 

Don't get me wrong mate if he receives Ceaucescu style justice from his own people or a drone blows his tent to kingdom come the world would be a better place but just as bad oppression is taking place against the Bahraini people and the UK and France and the rest of the world are not giving Bahrain a mention.

 

Like Libya the crown prince has exported forces from another country to commit genocide against his own people but all it has been in the media and the UN has been Gadaffi this Gadaffi that and nothing being done against what is happening in Bahrain which to me is wrong.

Like Libya the crown prince has exported forces from another country to commit genocide against his own people but all it has been in the media and the UN has been Gadaffi this Gadaffi that and nothing being done against what is happening in Bahrain which to me is wrong.

 

Actually, at the moment, the Media is more "Japan this, Japan that" to be fair, and understandably so.... But, yeah, the point is well made, we should be concentrating as much on the goings on in Bahrain...

 

My point is that we would be far more justified in getting involved in Libya because of Lockerbie (there's no statute of limitations on murder after all..), and seeing as how we were all blatantly lied to about Al-Magraghi's real state of health just so Noo Labor and Alex Salmond could do a dodgy deal with the Ghadafi-duck, then I think it's probably within the purview of a different government to do something a bit more affirmative against Ghadafi... Not necessarily "boots on the ground" perhaps, but certainly to get the supply-lines flowing to the rebels in Benghazi, air support against Ghadafi's armoured divisions, etc.....

As much as I enjoy being critical of the SNP and that ubercunt, the dodgy deal was all New-Labour in Westminster. From what I understand Salmond wasn't involved in any deals, after all its not as if he has any actual power.

Revolutionaries! Not rebels. gah bbc news annoys me so much some times.

Like Libya the crown prince has exported forces from another country to commit genocide against his own people but all it has been in the media and the UN has been Gadaffi this Gadaffi that and nothing being done against what is happening in Bahrain which to me is wrong.

 

Simple - more people have heard and know about Libya and Gaddafi than Bahrain and whoever controls there. The media thrives on familiarity and personality, rather than reporting on something that might truly be important in a place we know nothing about.

 

I know I'm a cynical so and so when it comes to the media, but living for 8 months in a country with Fox "News" will do that to you.

Anyone else who's supporting this feel a bit more uneasy now that Blair has come out in favour of it? :mellow: He wrote an article for the Times yesterday justifying it which was pretty much a rehash of the crap he came out with to defend Iraq.

Anyone else who's supporting this feel a bit more uneasy now that Blair has come out in favour of it? :mellow: He wrote an article for the Times yesterday justifying it which was pretty much a rehash of the crap he came out with to defend Iraq.

 

This is all about oil, the world let 700,000 Rwandan's die yet 1000 Libyans die and the world is spurred into action.

 

This is just the beginning. Within weeks there will be a full scale invasion in the name of 'regime change' and Libya will be asset stripped same way as Iraq has been.

This is all about oil, the world let 700,000 Rwandan's die yet 1000 Libyans die and the world is spurred into action.

 

This is just the beginning. Within weeks there will be a full scale invasion in the name of 'regime change' and Libya will be asset stripped same way as Iraq has been.

The difference is that full-scale invasion has been expressly forbidden (not to mention we don't have the manpower for it, as I realise that the UN forbidding it isn't exactly a cast-iron guarantee...) and that this has the support of the revolutionaries and the African Union. Would you rather we left the rebels to be massacred by Gaddafi just because there are also problems elsewhere in the world? 'Why should I tidy my room when the world's such a mess?' anyone?

I hope to God that the UK's involvement in Libya doesn't become Cameron's Falkland Islands eg. a war they took part in to gain votes and get the Conservatives a majority in the next election, which could be called sooner based on how popular it might be. I don't know how popular the UK's involvement is over there, but it seems to be quite popular over here.

This is all about oil, the world let 700,000 Rwandan's die yet 1000 Libyans die and the world is spurred into action.

 

This is just the beginning. Within weeks there will be a full scale invasion in the name of 'regime change' and Libya will be asset stripped same way as Iraq has been.

 

Wont happen, neither the UK nor US has the stomach for that, nor has it the necessary resources... This is being very strictly ordered by the UN. Heck, even France are on board this time, do you think THEY would be on-board if it was another Iraq...?

 

For once the UK and US is doing things properly and above board, with the proper UN sanctions... This is merely about giving the revolutionaries enough opportunity to re-group and do the "regime change" themselves (and surely Ghadafi captured and put on trial for war-crimes is what we all want).... To use a metaphor, we're giving the woodsman a chainsaw to cut down the tree instead of a hand-axe....

The difference is that full-scale invasion has been expressly forbidden (not to mention we don't have the manpower for it, as I realise that the UN forbidding it isn't exactly a cast-iron guarantee...) and that this has the support of the revolutionaries and the African Union. Would you rather we left the rebels to be massacred by Gaddafi just because there are also problems elsewhere in the world? 'Why should I tidy my room when the world's such a mess?' anyone?

 

I don't have the UN resolution to hand but from recollection it said something like 'take all necessary steps to protect civilians', the resolution contained very ambiguous wording as for example the forced removal of Gadaffi could be covered under the wording as his removal would be protecting civilians.

 

It was widely assumed that all this was going to be was going to be planes patrolling the skies to prevent the Libyan air force bombing the rebels but already today cruise missiles have been wiping out Libya's military infrastructure and French jets have been blowing up tanks and jeeps. Bad thing ? of course not but it is starting to remind me of the early days of the Iraq war and that resulted in a full scale invasion in the name of regime change.

 

Any right minded person of course wants the removal of Gadaffi and his sons but I don't want to see this become a new Iraq with the West removing Gadaffi installing a puppet regime and the West asset stripping Libya's resources to line Halliburton's pockets. If this military action is done right and for the right motives of course I fully support it.

Edited March 20, 201114 yr by Valley Pub

It was always assumed (over here at least) that the imposition of a no-fly zone would include measures to incapacitate the Libyan air force.

This is merely about giving the revolutionaries enough opportunity to re-group and do the "regime change" themselves (and surely Ghadafi captured and put on trial for war-crimes is what we all want).... To use a metaphor, we're giving the woodsman a chainsaw to cut down the tree instead of a hand-axe....

 

I hope so - but, tbh, I've got a horrible feeling this is going to end up mutating into another regime-change crusade, where we become actively involved in the rebels' advance from Benghazi. Which would be disastrous - it would probably actually strengthen Gaddafi's standing in the eyes of the Libyan people, as it would look like the West trying to dictate to Muslims yet again (the Arab League are already getting cold feet, so I imagine they'd completely withdraw support for the action if we go any further than just protecting the people of Benghazi).

 

I don't know... I think I'm still broadly supportive, because it's a horrible thought to think that Gaddafi would be slaughtering people in Benghazi right now if we'd not acted - but I think the UN resolution should've defined the objectives and a "gameplan" more clearly.

I hope so - but, tbh, I've got a horrible feeling this is going to end up mutating into another regime-change crusade, where we become actively involved in the rebels' advance from Benghazi. Which would be disastrous - it would probably actually strengthen Gaddafi's standing in the eyes of the Libyan people, as it would look like the West trying to dictate to Muslims yet again (the Arab League are already getting cold feet, so I imagine they'd completely withdraw support for the action if we go any further than just protecting the people of Benghazi).

 

I don't know... I think I'm still broadly supportive, because it's a horrible thought to think that Gaddafi would be slaughtering people in Benghazi right now if we'd not acted - but I think the UN resolution should've defined the objectives and a "gameplan" more clearly.

 

Getting rid of Gadaffi is a matter for the Libyan people last thing we need is another maniac making himself look a martyr in the arab world and putting the west in more danger.

 

Our involvement should cease after this initial phase bar arming and giving military training to the rebels, once the playing field has been levelled to give the rebels a fighting chance and we have taught the rebels professional military training then that should be it for us and we should end our involvement and let the Libyan rebels deal with Gadaffi.