|
Continuation of the current debate.
|
>> I can see that Zero and others feel strongly that the unpredictability of any military
>> action ought to rule it out in Libya because Libya's crisis is 'none of our
>> business'. Trouble is, it is our business up to a point, if only because a
>> lot of the Libyans want it to be, in a strictly circumscribed way.
Quite right. I've never understood the argument that a country can do whatever it wants to its own people, and that not other country can intervene. Why one human being can't help another, but instead have to sit idly by, simply because of a line on a map.
It is just a wife beater, who thinks that nobody has the right to tell him what he can do in his own house...but on an international scale.
That said, I still don't personally think that we should be attacking Libya...I just think that we have the right to.
|
|
How would we have felt if Libya had involved itself in our problems with Northern Ireland in the past? Hang on - they did - supplying arms to the IRA! Where do we go from that?
|
.....and Gadaffi (allegedly) ordered the biggest terrorist attack on UK soil, Lockerbie - and failed to hand over the suspects for murdering an UK Police Officer.....and etc etc.....
He is a bully and in the way of all bullies is reaping the whirlwind he sowed......
|
|
Pictures on the TV and web of locals clambering around the burnt out hulk of the downed F15. Whilst no-doubt attractive to them for whatever their motives (not sure if they're rebels or Gadafiites) but burnt carbon fibre and other synthetics emit a hideously toxic mix of flour-carbons and other cancer causing horrors, not to mention unspent munitions.... Keep well away guys.
|
|
Comrade Galloway speaking on Wests Libya intervention ~ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2u-pvOpcc
|
I don't like the man but at least he's consistant....which is more than can be said for some.
St Tony the Peacemaker has been strangely quiet on this.
|
|
On balance and having read, listened and watched all the bits and pieces on various media I have come to the conclusion that in isolation the West's current policy is wrong. I base this on why just Libya and not Bharain and Yemen ? The oil argument really doesn't wash with me as we would trade with whoever was in power in Libya. I feel we are on the brink of something big in the Mid East and beyond and to do this in Libya at this time is slightly "not right" - we should not have interfered in just one case, will we do the same in Syria. I unequivocally support our armed forces though.
|
|
I see from the news that now that the bombs have started falling the Arab League have started backpedaling. I foresee the middle east going wrong in a big way, thanks to our politicians grandstanding (again).
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 15:47
|
Bahrain and Yemen are different. The levels of government violence there have been lower than in Libya. They aren't countries bordering the Mediterranean and therefore next door to Europe. Their dissidents haven't asked for outside help and the UN hasn't okayed any operation.
Bahrain is worrying though because the dispute there coincides with the faultline inside Islam caused by the schism. If the situation there festers it could lead to overt Iranian involvement which would look very dangerous to the US. A settlement there must be seen as a priority but it's no easy matter.
|
Bahrain doesn't look that different to me, having read this report in the DT.
"It will be the second military intervention by the Gulf states in a few days, but the first was on a far more primitive level: teargas grenades fired at point-blank range into the faces of unarmed demonstrators; punishment beatings for injured protesters in their hospital beds; violence and intimidation against the wives and children of opposition activists in their village homes."
Plus the National Pearl Monument, in the middle of a roundabout occupied by the protesters has been destroyed by the government or their Saudi bully boys.
|
Yes, all very charmless and ugly PP, but still a bit different from firing RPGs and artillery into populated areas of towns, and quite a bit less lethal.
Trying to introduce measure and proportion into discussions of this sort, which tend to be dominated by vertigo of various sorts and by visceral disgust, is strangely unrewarding. It's easy for other people to see one as a cold-hearted Tory-lover indifferent to human suffering and willing to play skittles with our few remaining troops and aircraft for grandstanding purposes.
An important subtext to all this is the residual sympathy for Gaddafi's regime among people on the left (Dog, Ken Livingstone, the egregious Galloway, Hugo Chavez, etc.). All I can say is that I was in a similar position during the early days of Gaddafi's regime, but came gradually to realise that that was all flimflam.
He's an utter carphound. But a cunning one.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 17:17
|
|
He is. The world, potentially, would have been a better place if the USA had bumped him off in 1986.
|
If, if... no one knows what would have happened if the ghastly Reagan had done for the ghastly Gaddafi (I used to say at the time that they deserved one another... then as now most people thought I was wrong and mad). Just speculation.
If someone had kicked Hitler to death in a beer hall in 1925, we might all be in hell or paradise by now. But there's no profit in thinking about it.
|
>> If, if... no one knows what would have happened if the ghastly Reagan had done
>> for the ghastly Gaddafi (I used to say at the time that they deserved one
>> another... then as now most people thought I was wrong and mad). Just speculation.
>>
Either grandiosity, or a case of "those who can do, do; those who can't do, teach; and those who can't do neither, criticize everybody else from the comfort of their armchairs".
|
>>An important subtext to all this is the residual sympathy for Gaddafi's regime among people on the left (Dog, Ken Livingstone, the egregious Galloway, Hugo Chavez, etc.)<<
You must have misunderstood me somewhere along the line Sire as I am 100% behind the coalitions actions in Libya (so far)
|
Sorry perro... I seem to be misjudging everyone preemptively at the moment.
Excuse me while I go and clout the nippers to stop them from doing what they were planning to do...
|
>>Excuse me while I go and clout the nippers to stop them from doing what they were planning to do<<
Nippers! - I read that as kippers at first, perhaps I really do require specs after all :)
|
|
Herrings are the most cerebral of fish. But kippers have no plans.
|
Armel Coussine said:
>> An important subtext to all this is the residual sympathy for Gaddafi's regime among people
>> on the left (Dog, Ken Livingstone, the egregious Galloway, Hugo Chavez, etc.).
There is a certain type of extremist leftie whose stance is totally incomprehensible to me. Galloway is one such. We had one at work. He complained to the director about people saying, for example, that too many Poles came to the UK. Quite unacceptable to say that, according to him. Despite the fact that it is a mainstream view shared by many, perhaps not most, I don't know. Make a criticism of an ethnic minority, no matter how small, and he would get visibly angry. He was intensely sanctimonious and deeply caring towards certain groups. And yet he told me that he hates Americans and he hates Catholics. I have American relatives. And Catholic relatives. How can you claim to be so against racism and bigotry and then make such statements? My view is that there is a certain kind of lefty that is as vile as the extreme right. I'm not convinced Livingstone is of that ilk though. He seemed one of the decent lefties.
Anyway, people like Gaddafi try and manipulate the left, using their language to earn sympathy. Nasty vile little man. Did anyone see the program on TV last night? There was film of Gaddafi's thugs firing straight at unarmed protestors, using automatic weapons, and even heavy artillery. An ex soldier stated that Gaddafi junior had ordered the massacre.
I think we were caught in a catch 22 situation. Had we not acted, there would have been a bloodbath, with huge numbers of murders. Of course there have been massacres in places like Zimbabwe, but here I think we had a chance to act as there was a credible uprising underway.
|
>> There is a certain type of extremist leftie whose stance is totally incomprehensible to me. Galloway is one such. We had one at work. He complained to the director about people saying, for example, that too many Poles came to the UK. Quite unacceptable to say that, according to him. Despite the fact that it is a mainstream view shared by many, perhaps not most, I don't know. Make a criticism of an ethnic minority, no matter how small, and he would get visibly angry. He was intensely sanctimonious and deeply caring towards certain groups. And yet he told me that he hates Americans and he hates Catholics. I have American relatives. And Catholic relatives. How can you claim to be so against racism and bigotry and then make such statements? My view is that there is a certain kind of lefty that is as vile as the extreme right.
I don't regard such people as 'lefties'
What they are, is the worst possible kind of racist - the ones who will not admit that they have a single racist bone in their body, not even to their-selves.
I will stand up, and admit to having 'racist' feelings at times, and I firmly believe that everyone has feelings that could be classed as 'racist' at some time or another.
|
>> I will stand up, and admit to having 'racist' feelings at times, and I firmly believe that everyone has feelings that could be classed as 'racist' at some time or another.
Perhaps so Swiss. But to project perceived corruption, immorality, intellectual inferiority, etc. onto an entire national or 'racial' group on the basis of an individual experience, perhaps not fully digested, is guaranteed to cause suffering and other trouble apart from being, well, a bit dumb.
Of course moronic anti-racist posturing of the sort you mention does more harm than good in the opposite direction. The floor of hell is paved with good intentions, my old man used to say.
|
>> Perhaps so Swiss. But to project perceived corruption, immorality, intellectual inferiority, etc. onto an entire national or 'racial' group on the basis of an individual experience, perhaps not fully digested, is guaranteed to cause suffering and other trouble apart from being, well, a bit dumb.
>> Of course moronic anti-racist posturing of the sort you mention does more harm than good in the opposite direction. The floor of hell is paved with good intentions, my old man used to say.
That is so true AC.
|
>> I see from the news that now that the bombs have started falling the Arab
>> League have started backpedaling. I foresee the middle east going wrong in a big way,
>> thanks to our politicians grandstanding (again).
>>
So it's not a no fly zone at all, it's the usual "Let's drop lots of bombs because we can't think of anything else" zone.
|
|
Not quite! RAF aircraft flew to Libya and back last night without dropping anything, fears of civilain casualties apparently.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Mon 21 Mar 11 at 08:37
|
>>
>> So it's not a no fly zone at all, it's the usual "Let's drop lots
>> of bombs because we can't think of anything else" zone.
>>
Total nonsense.
|
"Why should my father step aside? There is a big misunderstanding. The whole country is united against the armed militia and the terrorists."
"Our people went to Benghazi to liberate Benghazi from the gangsters and the armed militia."
"So if you, if the Americans want to help the Libyan people in Benghazi... go to Benghazi and liberate Benghazi from the militia and the terrorists."
- Saif al-Islam on ABC today.
|
|
Clearly a kipper given AC's theory.
|
|
And a chip off the old loony. That sounds a bit like one of our political outfits. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 19:54
|
Gaddafi has been hosted at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle by the British royal family. Gaddafi claims that former Prime Minister Tony Blair is a personal friend who took an interest in((( advising Libya on oil revenues and finance))). In 2009, he spent a weekend at Waddesdon Manor, home of financier Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, where he was the guest of Lord Mandelson and Nathaniel Philip Rothschild. He later stayed at the Rothschild holiday home in Corfu. Nathaniel Rothschild was a guest at Saif's 37th birthday celebration in Montenegro.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Muammar_Al-Gaddafi#Personal_life)
Such a helpful person, is our peace envoy - sad that we cant have another 13 years of him really.
|
|
As I said - he's strangely quiet on this one - maybe they'll be up in the same Court eventually.
|
|
According to the press - the son had phoned Mandy for advice on presentation at the start of all this. Strange bedfellows - given Mandy's background.
|
>>As I said - he's strangely quiet on this one - maybe they'll be up in the same Court eventually<<
Perhaps he's lost his tongue PU, which according to Cherie in Iffi's newspaper yesterday, could well be true ;}
|
What might be called one of the tastier State visits, Dog... monarchs often have to shake hands with murderers. It's a hangover from the time when all monarchs actually were murderers.
Actually I've shaken hands with one or two myself, murderers and people subsequently murdered or executed. A handshake is a mere civility these days. To refuse one is a hostile act.
|
One has to be a lowbrow, a bit of a murderer, to be a politician, ready and willing to see people sacrificed, slaughtered, for the sake of an idea, whether a good one or a bad one.
Henry Miller
|
Henry Miller, hmmm.... many an intellectual ideologue who couldn't politick the skin off a rice pudding has shown startling brutality when it came to the defence of some crummy idea. A lot of people have been there before adulthood really kicked in. I certainly have.
Not that he's wrong of course. But I wasn't talking about people who are 'a bit of a murderer' or who had been sort of murdered. I did mean the real thing.
|
So. The UN have authorised a no-fly zone "to protect civilians". Various attacks have been made, which it is impossible to justify on the grounds of "protecting civilians", to support the "rebels" - which attacks have also blown a number of civilians to pieces. This has given Gaddaffi huge propoganda opportunities - the Arab League is complaining that the intervention has gone too far (so are the Russians). Another disaster for "the west", unless we're talning about further record-breaking attempts at putting our feet in it and killing (both "innocent" and "anti-western") people.
The whole lot's a flipping mess, and I am hugely angered and dismayed at our two-faced part in proceedings.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 21:04
|
Haven't been watching or listening so thanks for that FT, i'm face palming here as i so often do at the sheer idiocy of our electorate who put these fools in place.
And another bus went past.
|
With some in the Arab League saying the UN attacks have gone to far, I do wonder if they realised what a no-fly zone needed. For starters you have to have safety in patrolling the air so have to knock out radar, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, probably command and control centres, etc. Without this you cannot safely create a no-fly zone.
Now Gaddafi probably put some of these in areas close to civilian populations, especially his SAMs because these are mobile. Collateral damage was inevitable and very sad.
But if the UN and the Arab league said everything short of an invasion was okay to protect the civilians, then what did the protesting nations expect? And seeing a transporter full of tanks heading towards Benghazi what were the French pilots meant to do?
The UN couldn't win with this. The least they could do was a no fly zone and that requires some bombing.
|
>> SAMs because these are mobile. Collateral damage was inevitable and very sad.
>>
Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon a few minutes ago that mobile units were not being targeted - for now, at least.
"Navy Vice Admiral William E. Gortney told reporters that the attacks were especially effective against Libyan surface-to-air missiles that posed a threat to planes flying at medium and high altitudes.
But he stressed that mobile surface-to-air missiles were harder to eradicate through bombing.
As new elements of the bombing campaign continued today, Vice Admiral Cortney said three Air Force B-2 stealth bombers attacked an airfield, and a variety of U.S., British and French planes attacked elements of Gaddafi's ground troops in an area about 10 miles south of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi."
Last edited by: John H on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 21:56
|
|
Too late for the NFZ - they don't really need the aerial mobility now that his ground forces have moved into the built up areas in the rebel held areas. His air-force is aging and no match for the 4th generation agile jets that the allies are fielding......it's Iraq again - the air force will defect or stay on the ground.
|
|
I think the NFZ was needed weeks ago. Too little done and now it will be a civil war or close to it. So UN peacekeepers will be needed.
|
|
Looks like it's moved on to the next stage. Typhoons are flying over Libya patrolling the no fly zone.
|
|
I guess the RAF/MoD have been showcasing a bit - Giving the Typhoon its operational debut in oil rich mid-east,.......I suspect as well that the Tornados were flown from the UK in the initial phase as a saber rattle towards the Argentinians lest they think that no aircraft carriers means that they are out of mind.
|
I do wonder - how this excursion is going to pan out, the coalition forces have put a lot of hardware out of commission, but civilians are still being targeted in areas such as Misurata and the "rebels" are clearly not capable of taking on ddafi's men so, the only answer, really is - boots on the ground and - I'm not a'gonna say it but ...
perhaps we shouldn't have gorn in there at all.
Another fine mess!
|
Strange allies we seem to be aligning ourselves with. Last week Al Qaeda were the enemy, now we are fighting on the same side.
|
>> Strange allies we seem to be aligning ourselves with. Last week Al Qaeda were the
>> enemy, now we are fighting on the same side.
>>
Could be straight out of Orwell's 1984...
And today I'm sure some of our allowances well be increased from 10% to 5%.......
|
|
At the risk of being an armchair warrior (well deck chair actually) - I wonder why the Allies/Coalition haven't delivered aid into Benghazi ? Surely missing a trick as they have air-supremacy and ownership of the sea in that area ?
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 23 Mar 11 at 11:40
|
>> civilians are still being targeted in areas such as Misurata
Are these civilians the ones waving small arms about and grouping up in front of the cameras?
|
|
I would imagine they're the ones cowering in their homes in fear.
|
An interesting comment.
Do you refer to civilians in areas where Gaddaffi loyalists are fighting the "rebels", or to civilians in areas where rhe "rebels" are fighting the loyalists? Do you actually mean the civilians who we (the "coalition") are actually killing, and have yet to kill? Do you actually mean that the rebels themselves are somehow "civilians"? Do you mean that there are civilians "cowering in fear" lest Gaddaffi wins? Perhaps it's the other lot, "cowering in fear" lest the rebels win? Are these Harabi confederation civilians, the Gadhafi umbrella or Warfallah group's civilians, or just nameless disinterested "civilians"? The situation is complicated. We will be the enablers and commissioners of a huge number of civilian deaths in the time to come in Libya - more than there would otherwise have been. No doubt about it.
|
|
I was thinking more of the dirt poor locals caught in the middle of this with no particular agenda other than for them and their families to see tomorrow caring little who fired the bullet or shell that's winging its way towards them.
|
>> >> civilians are still being targeted in areas such as Misurata
>>
>> Are these civilians the ones waving small arms about and grouping up in front of
>> the cameras?
Just goes to show how difficult these situations are.
If your government sends tanks to blow up your city and you pick up a rifle to fight back, are you a rebel or a civilian?
|
>> Just goes to show how difficult these situations are.
It is indeed difficult.
>> If your government sends tanks to blow up your city and you pick up a
>> rifle to fight back, are you a rebel or a civilian?
Were that to be the case, neither.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 23 Mar 11 at 14:01
|
Foth' Thomas said:
>> So. The UN have authorised a no-fly zone "to protect civilians". Various attacks have been
>> made, which it is impossible to justify on the grounds of "protecting civilians", to support
>> the "rebels" - which attacks have also blown a number of civilians to pieces. This
>> has given Gaddaffi huge propoganda opportunities -
No-one seems to be swallowing Gaddafi's bull. The man has called several ceasefires, after which there have been credible reports that his troops continue to fire heavy artillery at civilian areas, and his snipers position themselves on roofs to pick off anyone they can see.
I think the hope is that by destroying Gaddafi's air force, and tanks, it will allow the people in the West to rise up, as they did in the East.
>> the Arab League is complaining that the intervention
>> has gone too far (so are the Russians).
The Russians eh? Those fun loving peaceful beatniks? They who helped Chechnya by brutalising its people and massacring anyone who opposed their occupation? A country which appears to be deeply corrupt, where journalists who expose high level corruption are routinely murdered allegedly with support at high levels?
>>Another disaster for "the west", unless we're
>> talning about further record-breaking attempts at putting our feet in it and killing (both "innocent"
>> and "anti-western") people.
There is no evidence that we are killing innocents. And the world's press is largely in favour of the action.
>> The whole lot's a flipping mess, and I am hugely angered and dismayed at our
>> two-faced part in proceedings.
|
>> No-one seems to be swallowing Gaddafi's bull. The man has called several
>> ceasefires, after which there have been credible reports that his troops
>> continue to fire heavy artillery at civilian areas, and his snipers position
>> themselves on roofs to pick off anyone they can see.
Think about it a little more (also see below re "the world's press"). Gaddaffi has been accused of using "human shields" to deter attacks from "the coalition" (that hackneyed description) - what are the "rebels" doing, if not just that? I'm wondering how the "credible reports of snipers picking off everyone they can" relates to civilians or "rebels".
There are two sides to any story, as well as the overall picture - we're just seeing part of one side's story at the moment. It's wise to consider rather than take as read.
>> I think the hope is that by destroying Gaddafi's air force, and tanks, it will
>> allow the people in the West to rise up, as they did in the East.
Disregarding Libya's internal situation completely, of course. Many, if not most there are of the Gaddhafi/Warfallah persulasion. They are linked. Should he go, it is most likely that one of his immediate family will succeed, after possible in-fighting. Then what?
>> >> the Arab League is complaining that the intervention
>> >> has gone too far (so are the Russians).
>>
>> The Russians eh? (snip)
You didn't mention the Arab League together with your abuse of the Russians (nor the Chinese, nor the African Union).
>> >> Another disaster for "the west", unless we're talking about further record-
>> >> breaking attempts at putting our feet in it and killing (both "innocent"
>> >> and "anti-western") people.
>>
>> There is no evidence that we are killing innocents.
That's precisely why the Arab League and others are objecting - because civilian people are being killed by us. Amr Moussa actually said that "coalition" actions go further than those that the Arab League OK'd and are causing civilian deaths - “what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."
>> And the world's press is largely in favour of the action.
They were also largely in favour of the "Iraq war", too. Consider the similarities:
o - "Weapons of mass destruction".
o - "Supporting terrorism"
o - "Threatening neighbouring States"
o - "Human rights abuse"
o - They've got oil
o - There is strife between internal population groups
o - We're banging away in there as quick as we can without further talks
>> >> The whole lot's a flipping mess, and I am hugely angered and dismayed at
>> >> our two-faced part in proceedings.
I re-iterate the above.
Oh, and I'd draw your attention to the number of civilian deaths caused in Iraq, too.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 23 Mar 11 at 23:19
|
|
In fairness the BBC remained impartial to the Gulf War and erred on the side of major doubt in respect of Blair's novel - "The Dossier" seeing as one of their reporters found out that he cut and pasted most of it from the 'net.
|
The "rebels" seem very much like the other lot:
bit.ly/fouFxo (Daily Telegraph, Rebel leaders admit that dozens of Gaddafi supporters have been arrested or killed).
|
That's the way these things work. You go in full of moral righteousness, supporting the goodies. Then as you get more involved, you have to start making excuses for some of your new found friends. Then in the end you realise the goodies have turned into exactly the kind of baddies you thought you were opposing in the first place.
Cue to scuttle out, until next time.
But the converse is that if you leave them alone, the baddies eventually turn out to be not so bad after all. Finally we give them foreign aid and IMF loan or they join the commonwealth, and everyone lives happily ever after.
|
|
Now that pillock Rifkind writes in the DT about "arming the insurgents". Flippin' hell.
|
>> Think about it a little more (also see below re "the world's press"). Gaddaffi has
>> been accused of using "human shields" to deter attacks from "the coalition" (that hackneyed description)
>> - what are the "rebels" doing, if not just that? I'm wondering how the "credible
>> reports of snipers picking off everyone they can" relates to civilians or "rebels".
There is film of Gaddafi's thugs firing automatic weapons straight at unarmed protestors. And testimony from doctors and others. How much evidence do you need? And senior figures from the regime including foreign embassadors protested at the massacres of civilians.
>> There are two sides to any story, as well as the overall picture - we're
>> just seeing part of one side's story at the moment. It's wise to consider rather
>> than take as read.
Actually there are journalists in Libya so there is some idea of what is happening. As far as I know those in rebel areas are free to travel unhindered, those in Gaddafi-land are restricted in their movements.
>> Disregarding Libya's internal situation completely, of course. Many, if not most there are of the
>> Gaddhafi/Warfallah persulasion. They are linked. Should he go, it is most likely that one of
>> his immediate family will succeed, after possible in-fighting. Then what?
You base that on the results of an election/poll?
>> >> >> the Arab League is complaining that the intervention
>> >> >> has gone too far (so are the Russians).
>> >>
>> >> The Russians eh? (snip)
>>
>> You didn't mention the Arab League together with your abuse of the Russians (nor the
>> Chinese, nor the African Union).
I did not abuse the Russians. Such criticisms as I made have been made by respected journalists and organisations. It is a fact that journalists are routinely murdered when they criticise alleged corruption, and suspicions are that senior figures are involved. Those who run Russia often had strong links with the old KGB and it is suspected they continue with their old methods. And yes the African Union includes some unpleasant despots.
>> That's precisely why the Arab League and others are objecting - because civilian people are
>> being killed by us. Amr Moussa actually said that "coalition" actions go further than those
>> that the Arab League OK'd and are causing civilian deaths - “what we want is
>> civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."
They have presented no evidence of deaths. In fact many Arab regimes are probably frightened that the contagion will spread and infect their own non liberal corrupt regimes.
>> >> And the world's press is largely in favour of the action.
>>
>> They were also largely in favour of the "Iraq war", too. Consider the similarities:
I would argue against that. I was against the Iraq war, as were most friends and colleagues.
>> >> >> The whole lot's a flipping mess, and I am hugely angered and dismayed
>> at
>> >> >> our two-faced part in proceedings.
>>
>> I re-iterate the above.
>>
>> Oh, and I'd draw your attention to the number of civilian deaths caused in Iraq,
>> too.
Huge numbers of civilians were killed in Iraq and people like Blair have blood on their hands. One difference here is the engagement of many countries including Arab states, Denmark, Spain and so on. And in Iraq there was widespread dislike of the American invasion. That does not seem to be the case here.
Yes there is risk, but one 'good war' to remember is the one that brought down Milosovic, a war that Clinton and Blair deserve credit for i.e. few deaths, but a big result.
|
Very non politically correct in its language mais, peut-être, un morceau de vérité.....
tinyurl.com/4gwccqm
|
Regardlesss of what is going on in Libya now and our views on the rights and wrongs, for me the glaring problem is the lack of any options for an Exit Strategy. We were going to in AFGH for 3 years on a hearts and minds and rebuild the infrastructure with not a shot being fired, according to "Dr" John Reid. Now 350 + of our tropps dead and very little achieved.
We might be wasting time and money in Libya for the rest of this year, at least.
|
We're not wasting time and money, we're making sure we are the Middle East's bogeyman...as if other recent and ongoing actions weren't already enough.
Not sure it's such a brilliant policy meself..;)
|
|
ISTR that the slimy two-faced TB is the Middle East Bogeyman! The man who helped with invading Iraq for no valid reson and is now a Middle East Peace Envoy??!!!! PERLEASE!!!
|
>> Very non politically correct in its language mais, peut-être, un morceau de vérité.....
>>
>> tinyurl.com/4gwccqm
Perhaps there is a grain of truth in that article, but it is submerged in a fairly racist undercurrent. I read another of the articles, and that too seemed decidedly racist, with frequent references to slanty eyed types i.e. Japanese. It's odd but maybe 20 years ago I would have laughed at an article referring to nig nogs and slanty eyes, but these days it just sounds at best puerile and zenophobic. Sorry to be so boring.
|
Tried to edit that last post but the edit evaporated!!!!
I read another article on that site, and it contained a rather unpleasant attack on a government minister, making fun of some recent problems in his family life. Disgraceful. I can see that sniping at a minister is fun, and they are public figures, but there is no call for that sort of abuse. I won't elaborate on this specific case because it is his private life, but to give an example, let's assume a fictitious minister has a child who dies from an illness. You don't use then write an article and refer to The Right Honourable Mr. Dead Child for humour. I think the person who writes that site is a sad and pathetic little creep. May he rot in hell.
|
No-fly zone over Libya Volume 3 - SteelSpark
