***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Well, the UN have passed the resolution, and there has been some discussion of UK pilots flying over Libya as early as tomorrow (although I can't see that happening).
So what happens now?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 18:13
|
Great timing. Gadaffi is now more or less in control. So what does this buy us? It buys us an upset and angry madman, upset and angry with us.
The no fly zone will achieve nothing. Its half assed meddling, the very worse kind of intervention.
|
Z I agree this is way too late. Even if the UN allows them to bomb tanks on the ground it has not got rid of Gaddafi. A few weeks ago it looked like the popular uprising could get rid of him. Then he started bombing them.
As you say it will end up with someone angry against us and it will also be turmoil there for some time.
Maybe the seizing of assets will make him realise it's best if he leaves. If he left weeks ago with billions and nobody else died then fine. Now it's the worst of all worlds.
Let him get on a plane to somewhere safe I say.... and then throw him out.
|
Depends on the nature of the "plan" is it to prevent any military flights and commercial flights designed to bring in weapons ? Then it means suppressing anti aircraft infrastructure and then Combat Air Patrols to shoot down any aircraft in breach of the NFZ. Or does it include suppression of heavy weapons including tanks and artillery.
"assets" are probably in the area as we speak - Arab League countries have agreed to provide logistical support - Egyptian Airfields ??
|
|
Zero is right - in the old days British diplomacy would have sorted the NFZ long before the UN got in the mix - Obama has dawdled on this - to his everlasting shame.
|
PU, the news I've read seems to imply it is more than a no fly zone (I hope so). There is mention of stopping short of invading, or words to that effect.
Now if he lost the use of aircraft and any tanks were knocked out if used.... the balance could swing against him again.
|
im so mad so many people have died while the so called UN and all the other tin pot people sit on their asses as people die
too little too late
|
BB they had plenty of time to push for this sooner - before he started to get near the east of the country. So now they owe it to Libya to help get rid of Gaddafi and family. Not literally I suppose but that might be cheaper/easier.
I wonder if the world was briefly distracted by the tragedy unfolding in Japan?
|
The key words are probably these:
"all necessary measures" short of an invasion "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas"
Looks like they can bomb the tanks if they are threatening civilians?
|
It seem that Gadaffi could launch an attack on Benghazi within hours, and quite likely will do now.
On that basis, it would seem that it really could be too little too late.
But I wonder how soon this could get moving. I am hearing suggestions now that it could be within hours, but it is not clear who exactly could be involved that soon.
|
But if this is approved and therefore something could now happen in hours... shouldn't Gaddafi consider not doing anything.
I wonder if there are any cruise missiles in the vicinity. There are certainly planes capable of doing something.
I hope the British government take this opportunity to show why we can get by without an aircraft carrier in the area. Bomb Gaddafi followers I say. They are mostly mercenaries anyway.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 17 Mar 11 at 23:37
|
>> But if this is approved and therefore something could now happen in hours... shouldn't Gaddafi
>> consider not doing anything.
He will probably think that he has nothing to lose...after all, I doubt he will be leading the charge on Benghazi from the front...
|
|
Which is why I'd bomb the rear.
|
>> Which is why I'd bomb the rear.
He probably won't even be at the rear. It's more likely that he is in the Savoy, with a Martini and a stripper, watching this on Sky News.
|
Bomb the Savoy too then ;-)
I still think it's too little and too late. He'll have probably done the damage in Benghazi tonight.
|
If I knew the RAF current strength and capability, which I don't, I wouldn't post it here. However SFAIK the enforcement of a NFZ would involve pairs of aircraft on station, manning a Combat Air Patrol, 24 hours a day To do this without tanker support would need at least 6 aircraft available and 8 would be better. Bearing in mind that the RAF has to provide 24 hour a day air defence for the UK, flying from 2 bases I wouldn't care to guess how many air defence capable aircraft they have "spare" to go to the MED.
|
You mean 2 aircraft is all it would take to keep the whole Libyan airforce on the ground?
Why did Goering find it so difficult then?
|
|
Because Goering didn't have an AWACS to help him. :-)
|
|
Based on the same criteria for sending aircraft into Libya, we should now be enforcing a no fly zone over Saudi Arabia and bombing them, because they have invaded Bahrain and are killing civilians.
|
>>Bomb Gaddafi followers I say. They are mostly mercenaries anyway<<
>>Which is why I'd bomb the rear<<
>>Bomb the Savoy too then ;-)<<
You wouldn't be a member of the Red Cross by any chance would you?
|
|
No, what I meant was, it would be enforced by pairs of aircraft and I have no idea of how many; up to 10 pairs airborne all the time = about 80 aircraft needed for the task. RAF couldn't get near that suffice to say.
|
>> No, what I meant was, it would be enforced by pairs of aircraft and I
>> have no idea of how many; up to 10 pairs airborne all the time =
>> about 80 aircraft needed for the task. RAF couldn't get near that suffice to say.
>>
I think we may be misinterpreting the meaning of the declaration of the "no fly zone".
There may be no real time enforcement of no-flying. Instead, I see it as akin to a "no speeding" zone, whereby evidence is gathered via passive means, and action is taken against you some time after you have been found to breached the ban.
So if Gaddafi's air force attacks anyone, the UN forces will consider that as a green light for them to launch cruise missiles to attack the airfields. It is the threat of such action that is supposed to act as a dis-intensive to stop the flying in the first place.
|
>> >>
>>
>> I think we may be misinterpreting the meaning of the declaration of the "no fly
>> zone".
>>
>> There may be no real time enforcement of no-flying. Instead, I see it as akin
>> to a "no speeding" zone, whereby evidence is gathered
>>
>>
>>
Ah, I said it only meant "Thank you for not flying".
Gaddafi will just get a letter from the DVLA.
|
|
How are we supposed to get a NIP to Tripoli in 14 days?
|
>> How are we supposed to get a NIP to Tripoli in 14 days?
>>
Easy, send it via the UN. They should just make it within 14 days.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 10:26
|
>> Ah, I said it only meant "Thank you for not flying".
>>
>> Gaddafi will just get a letter from the DVLA.
>>
I missed your first reply right at the top.
Yes, that is it, just a "Thank you for not flying", except if he is naughty, his airfields get blown up.
|
The enforcement will be by other countries than USA , UK and France.
Talk on the news yesterday was that other Middle East countries such as Saudi and Qatar will be involved in the enforcement process as they want to get rid of Gadaffi as well.
Commercially Libya has been a no fly zone since the trouble started and my company personnel and equipment are now safely out of range offshore. ......
|
tinyurl.com/6yx9fhs
The comments say much about the idea of THIS war!
(Link to order-order.com. Warning - NSFW language.)
|
Alternative view, contains some rude words:
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/fingers-crossed-libyan-rebels-aren%27t-insane-201103183639/
"It's fair to say that our general dicking about in Muslim countries hasn't always worked."
|
>> as they want to get rid of
>> Gadaffi as well.
>>
>>
>>
They are shortsighted. Overthrowing a despotic strongman, even an unhinged one, always produces unforeseen consequences, and usually results in instability and the ultimate emergence of someone even worse.
It is much easier and safer to deal with a strong enemy than a weak friend.
|
|
No-one has learned a damn thing from the Iraq and Sadam debacle.
|
>>>No-one has learned a damn thing from the Iraq and Sadam debacle.
Quite. Sadam was the best leader for Iraq... and we have no business fiddling with Libya in the current circumstances.
|
>> >>>No-one has learned a damn thing from the Iraq and Sadam debacle.
>>
>> Quite. Sadam was the best leader for Iraq... and we have no business fiddling with
>> Libya in the current circumstances.
A large number of Libyans actually support Colonel Gaddaffi.
|
|
Quite a lot of older Russian people yearn for the Good Old Days when Stalin was in charge. A lot of people disapeared but if you tolerated the regime you had a job, a roof over your head, some food on the table and a pension you could live on. Some of despots provide a very rough and ready but stable quality of life which may appeal to the population more than divisive progress; Mercs for the top boys and camels for the rest
|
>>Quite a lot of older Russian people yearn for the Good Old Days<<
Same in the GDR comradski.
>>if you tolerated the regime you had a job, a roof over your head, some food on the table and a pension you could live on<<
ditto.
|
An interesting read, tovarishch?
tinyurl.com/4rvz3j6
|
|
Thanks - I'll check that out.
|
|
The no fly zone worked quite well for years in Iraq. It's only when Tony wanted to become a war leader that things went down hill.
|
|
To a degree this may have been that the IAF didn't have much to fly.
|
No I agree but it did establish a principle that protection could be offered without boots on the ground. Just read up on the UN resolution it seems a lot clearer than anything related to Iraq with an important proviso about boots on the ground. The liberal in me felt that we couldn't stand by and watch this happen on our doorstep effectively.
I wonder if there has been a coup in Tripoli.
|
>> The liberal in me felt that we couldn't stand by and watch this happen on
>> our doorstep effectively.
You have a big doorstep, It covers two continents.
|
From Viz Top Tips on Twitter today (@TwopTwips):
THE NEWS. Help iPhone users comprehend the Libyan situation by showing Cameron catapulting red birds at Gaddafi's green pigs.
|
My foreign policy is that unless they are firing at me, I leave it to the people in government who have a darn sight more info than the general public do.
I do rather wish the UK didnt have a prominant role in these things, we always seem to headlining.
|
>> the people in government who have a darn sight more info than the general public
>> do.
Alas they also have a desire to appear in the press more than the general public do.
|
>> they also have a desire to appear in the press more than the general public do.
Do they really Zero? I think you may have got it backwards. After all the great and bad know what it's like being tossed up and down by the media, while vox pop doesn't as a rule so is quite keen to have his or her ten minutes of fame.
Ah yes, the media. What people don't really seem to understand about Libya for example is that places like that don't have public opinion. They have completely obedient, and inexpressibly dreary, mass media touting the official line morning, noon and night. Very few people dare to gainsay the official line publicly. Almost everyone does the sensible thing which is to pretend to believe all the ghastly claptrap. In private though, wild rumours fly about, fed by the reality that ruling families and cliques monopolise - steal - much of the national wealth and follow reactionary development policies that protect their own interests and obstruct other people's efforts to try a bit of enterprise.
After 40 years of that sort of carp a population can build up quite a head of steam in the general frustration area. Ask almost any North African from almost any of the countries there. If you educate people to a fairly high standard and then feed them on unbelievable waffle they naturally get a bit annoyed. That's a large part of the cause of the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. At least the Tunisian and Egyptian leaderships had the grace to feel a bit ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately though the barmy colonel thinks he is himself the revolution and these dissidents are just traitors in the pay of the west.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 16:34
|
I didnt say that British statesman would appear on Libyan TV, the only person who does is the one who takes control of the TV studios.
I was stating that the only reason the likes of Cameron have intervened, is so they can look decisive and statesman like to their home electorate.
|
Our government is damned if it does or doesn't do something. Act on Libya and some see that as wrong. Do nothing and that is wrong. Let us hope this has fewer atrocities than Bosnia now the UN has stepped in.
But until Gaddafi and his regime go, there is no easy end to this.
Although many say William Hague and the Foreign Office have not done so well, I think they have had to handle quite a bit lately and are doing okay, e.g.
- Tunisia
- Egypt
- Airlifts out of Libya (including daring use of Hercules aircraft in the deserts)
- Bahrain
- Japan
- Libya again
Okay they made some mistakes like the SAS in Libya being captured.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 19:33
|
>>I was stating that the only reason the likes of Cameron have intervened, is so they can look decisive and statesman like to their home electorate <<
Or quite possibly its his job to react to such things, being the Prime Minister and all that...
|
>> I didnt say that British statesman would appear on Libyan TV, the only person who does is the one who takes control of the TV studios.
Are we talking at cross purposes Zeddo? Did I seem to think you had said that?
I can't help thinking you are oversimplifying the job - if you can call it a job - of prime minister of this country too. The way I see it, a top politician is there because he can keep more balls in the air at a time than most other people. It is very rare indeed, as I see it, for a major or even minor political decision to be taken for one reason alone. One reason may be given, but there are always a lot of others.
But what do I know? Apart from knowing I couldn't begin to be pm of this country and wouldn't dare try. Any more than you could or would.
Not that I am trying to defend the Prime Minister here you understand. He can look after himself I think.
|
>> Are we talking at cross purposes Zeddo? Did I seem to think you had said
>> that?
Seemed that way to me
>> I can't help thinking you are oversimplifying the job - if you can call it
>> a job - of prime minister of this country too.
Look - doing nothing is a valid choice of action. They have NO idea of whom they would be dealing with if Gadafi falls, they have NO idea of how to fill any voids of command and control if he goes, absolutely NO idea of any end game plan.
What Gadafi is doing to his people is no business of ours, its up to his people.
Now you know what really appaling about this? We are entering an military alliance with Saudi Arabia to enforce a no fly zone, this is the same Saudi Arabia that is helping to crush the peoples revolt in Bahrain.
Justify that. Does no one see this as hypocrisy of the slimiest sort? done in the name of the British people.
|
>>Look - doing nothing is a valid choice of action. They have NO idea of whom they would be dealing with if Gadafi falls, they have NO idea of how to fill any voids of command and control if he goes, absolutely NO idea of any end game plan <<
One has to presume you work in the Foreign Office or perhaps the UN since you are making some pretty bold statements as fact.
Either that or its a load of hot air and you dont know any more about it than the lad behind the counter at Mc D's.
Fine if you dont like the government, many dont, but dont drag up some phony rubbish about what a government does and doesnt know when infact, ironically, you have no clue what it is they do and dont know. Thats hypocracy at its very best. Ever thought about going into politics?
|
>> Either that or its a load of hot air and you dont know any more
>> about it than the lad behind the counter at Mc D's.
>> but dont drag up some phony
>> rubbish about what a government does and doesnt know when infact, ironically, you have no
>> clue what it is they do and dont know.
Have you heard of IRAQ? At all? do you read news AT ALL?
Government? Weapons of mass destruction? remember them?
This is the same government who sent people over to Libya to negotiate, except they got captured by the people they were supposed because they had no idea who they were dealing with or what they wanted.
Those two are FACTS, facts you would know if you read the news. Pretty pertinent as it happens.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 20:14
|
No, your stating what the government does and doesnt know.
I dont doubt the ability of the government or infact the UN to get it wrong, but you seem to presume you know as fact what the government, right now, as we speak, knows. Thats what you said.
Its quite alright that you dont hold any confidence in the outcome of the conflict, but Im not going to sit here and presume that I know anywhere near as much about the preparations for this action as this government, the UN and other countries gearing up.
Its an absurb presumption unless you are infact part of the government or those involved in the planning.
The Labour government doesnt have a good record on conflicts, this is true, but they arent in power atm so Iraq isnt part of the ConDem record, although it comes with a book on how not to do it, which is presumably why we waited on the UN resolution. Already doing better than Blair.
|
>> The Labour government doesnt have a good record on conflicts, this is true, but they
>> arent in power atm so Iraq isnt part of the ConDem record, although it comes
>> with a book on how not to do it, which is presumably why we waited
>> on the UN resolution. Already doing better than Blair.
Its the same foreign office, same advisers, same staff.
There were no presumptions, clearly you didn't read the part where our guys got captured. They know huh? There is proof they don't have a clue about whom they would be dealing with, what other real proof do you need?
you haven't answered the part about working with the Saudis, you know the same Saudis who are keeping the "rebels" suppressed in Bahrain?
|
>>There is proof they don't have a clue about whom they would be dealing with, what other real proof do you need? <<
Since the UN operation hasnt started and the UK will be working under the UN, id prefer to wait and see what the performance of the UN organised mission is.
One very minor mission failure is hardly a good reason to duck out of UN responsibilities.
People make mistakes and I imagine someone got a hiding for that mission. We only heard about it because it went wrong - it may well be that subsequent missions have happened that we do not know about.
I think it is uncomfortable working with the Saudis but at this stage, the UN is not getting involved and support in the Middle East is crucial to giving this adventure some credibility to the people of the region - they dont really trust the West so getting that local support, however questionable in our eyes, is important. Diplomacy is never straightforward.
|
>> Look - doing nothing is a valid choice of action.
It is of course. But a head of government can't rely on staying out of trouble by doing nothing under all circumstances. Even if shrewd members of the public, like your good self, are satisfied with the do-nothing line, it's a pretty good bet that sections of the media, not to mention the parliamentary opposition, will soon start to carp and complain.
I don't know what makes you think the government has no idea who the Libyan dissidents are and no contingency plans. It is the job of governments to know such things and have such plans. Perhaps they have incorrect information and the plans are rubbish. Time will tell. But do you really think the helicopter full of SAS men that tripped over some farm guards was the only attempt to get someone in there to assess the situation, and that all the other attempts have failed?
I think you're playing safe yourself here Zeddo. If our people are the bunch of clowns you imply they are, you will be right. If they don't screw up too badly, you can say they were lucky.
|
>>I don't know what makes you think the government has no idea who the Libyan dissidents are >>and no contingency plans. It is the job of governments to know such things and have such >>plans.
IRAQ, Afghanistan. You have a delightfully short memory AC.
|
|
I think Hugh Grant made a smashing Prime Minister. The bird with enormous thighs thought so to. Actually.
|
I see that Obama is now busy talking tough on US TV, laying down demands and generally basking in the glory.
He wasn't so loud when he was hanging around in the shadows, seeing how this was going to play out.
It must be nice for him to stretch his legs, that fence can't be too comfortable.
|
Armel Coussine:
>> Ah yes, the media. What people don't really seem to understand about Libya for example
>> is that places like that don't have public opinion. They have completely obedient, and inexpressibly
>> dreary, mass media touting the official line morning, noon and night.
Quite. A bit like Italy then? Or China? Or Russia? And to be honest although we have a relatively free press, a lot of news is filtered through the supposedly impartial - for which read self satisfied liberal left of centre - BBC. And even news that goes through other channels is filtered by our countries general 'concensus' and view of itself.
I am sure that a lot of Germans were complicit in the atrocities of WW2 as a result of systematic indoctrination over more than a decade by the Nazi propaganda machine.
Back on track, we don't even know what sort of government the opposition want to form.
|
|
Not our business - when will we ever learn?
|
>> - when will we ever learn?
>>
As per the other thread, it seems you can only elect a party (or indeed allow the possibilty) if the present parties approve, so the answer is never.
|
|
"for which read self satisfied liberal left of centre - BBC" So you say. But comment on "balance" is bedevilled. However, given the turmoil in the Middle east, and the futility of attempting to heal their own divisions, we'd be better spending the money squandered on John Wayne adventures, by keeping quiet and beefing up our own defences.
|
>> A bit like Italy then?
Not at all. Italy has a free press. So does this country.
If you imagine the media here, or the public discourse here, or the mode of government here are comparable in any way at all to the ones in a place like Libya or Algeria, you may need to travel a bit. Or if you have travelled a bit, you may need to think about what you have seen.
'Self-satisfied liberal left of centre' indeed! That doesn't even begin to describe the BBC. Is your complaint that it isn't right-wing enough? I've certainly heard a lot of complaints in the other direction over the years...
Nothing's perfect of course and no one in their right mind would think anything in our country was beyond criticism or anything like it. I complain with the best. But you don't have to idealise this country or 'democracy' to understand these things. They are transparently obvious if you really look. Some people don't know when they are lucky.
|
|
Just seen BBC footage of Libyan rebels shooting down an Air Force jet. If they can manage it I do worry that Government AAA might get even luckier shooting at any aircraft in Libyan airspace enforcing the NFZ.
|
|
MiG 23 Flogger ? I read somewhere that the rebels had captured one and were using it against the loyalist forces. Hope it wasn't a home goal. As Penguin said hope they don't start on friendly aircraft.
|
Its a mess. NO clear lines of demarcation, no clear idea of who is rebel and who is loyalist, who holds what,
And they put a Yank in charge.
And obama is now spouting threats expecting everyone else to carry them out.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 10:01
|
|
Someone must have woken him up or he fell off the fence in his sleep.
|
|
Uncredited photos but very graphic. Someone was in the right place. Just seen the videos - it looks like a missile strike rather than AAA.
|
This is all to stop the French looking silly you know.
The French came out and recognised the rebels as the government there, so the rebels promptly started to withdraw and retreat (in the French way), and Gaddafi gained the upper hand and started to win,
The French now have egg on their faces and expect the Yanks and the Brits to save them.
Again.
|
|
As a student of WW1 history - That is nothing new for them.....Plan XXXV11B(a) was the one they eventually used...they had more cunning plans than all of Bladrick's put together.
|
>> Just seen BBC footage of Libyan rebels shooting down an Air Force jet. If they
>> can manage it I do worry that Government AAA might get even luckier shooting at
>> any aircraft in Libyan airspace enforcing the NFZ.
This is why Robert Gates said that any NFZ would require an initial attack on the Libyan air defences.
It's pretty obvious that the offensive is not stopping and that action is going to start soon.
This is going to be more than putting up a "please do not fly" sign I fear. I think that this is going to get messy very quickly.
I personally would expect some kind of military strikes to take out the air defences fairly soon, although logistically I don't know what "we" (meaning whatever coalition there is) are capable of doing right now.
|
|
His air defence infrastructure would have been pretty well mapped in the last few weeks. Special Forces are known to have been in the country. Also French and Italian contractors probably would have built them for him. Once his air-defences are down it will become very hard for him to command and control effectively. This can be done by stand off forces (i.e. Tomahawk ship launched missiles and stand off air launched missiles). Once this starts I would imagine that specialist defections would start to happen.
|
We are going to end up partitioning the country. Drawing arbitary lines between those who support him and those who dont.
I thought we stopped carving up African borders 150 years ago.
|
I think Z and PU are right - could end up carving up the country in two. But which gets the majority of the oil? America probably.
Gaddafi is probably telling a half truth when he says the military has stopped attacking. It's the pro-Gaddafi militia which he pays doing all the attacking. He never trusted the military in case they started a coup.
|
|
"I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down"
|
You may cause offence by suggesting that Gaddafi's Libya resembles the Three Little Pigs in their house of straw, Roger.
Halouf is haram, you dig?
|
|
The shot-down aircraft looks like an own goal...i.e. the rebels shot down their one and only plane - doh !
|
|
And we are on their side, flying over them, Yeah great.
|
|
And they took a pot shot at the C130 last month. That shhot-down looked more missile than traditional artillery.
|
>> looked more missile than traditional artillery.
Ground fire with 'traditional artillery' is a very inefficient way of shooting down even slow-moving aircraft let alone strike fighters which appear over the horizon, float there for a moment apparently moving very slowly (but expanding rapidly if you look closely) and then blast overhead and out of sight over the other horizon with a shattering roar in just a few seconds. They are almost impossible to hit even with streams of 50 calibre tracer, and Libyan gunnery doesn't look much good to me, on TV anyway.
Missiles - the right missiles - are the only way to bring such planes down reliably, and they take a lot of skill to set up and operate properly. Cost thousands of dollars a round too, although using one or even several to bring down a war device that costs twenty or thirty million is quite cost-effective.
Ordnance is good business because warfare is incredibly expensive and (fortunately from the humanist point of view) fantastically wasteful and prodigal.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 17:15
|
|
PU: I answered a wrongheaded post by Zero only half an hour old in the locked thread, then unlocked. When I posted it it vanished. How incredibly annoying. Some notice before this tinkering would be a good thing.
|
|
I'll try and dig it out - sorry.
|
|
Pompous to complain really. It is I who should be sorry. A moment of annoyance, that was all. Don't worry about it.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 20:06
|
In that thread, Zero complained that the rebel leadership included former members of the Gaddafi regime and implied that they must necessarily be implicated in all the mad colonel's deeds and sayings.
I would argue that this is far from likely and point out that the only way to 'be someone' in Gaddafi's Libya was to have a relationship with the regime. Even after going through this process some of those people have stood up to be counted as members of the opposition. If the opposition rank and file think they're OK it's silly of us to complain. That's the way the world is.
In fact quite a few distinguished Libyans, ministers, ambassadors and so on, have gone into exile or otherwise fallen out with the regime over the years.
|
I was saying its better the old mad dog you know, than the litter of young yappie mad dog puppies.
One of the pups is going to try and be alpha male.
IN fact thats probably whats happening now.
What dog of the litter do you support?
|
There are ways and ways of doing that, if it's the way you see things happening everywhere, some geezer having to be alpha male. It's like that in a way I guess.
But this, really, is none of our business unless we are asked for advice. It's not easy to understand other people's politics - God knows our own are inscrutable enough.
But I don't see what reason you have to suggest the Libyans only understand fascism. They're used to it, and sick of it.
|
>> But I don't see what reason you have to suggest the Libyans only understand fascism.
>> They're used to it, and sick of it.
Dont understand democracy either, never had it. There is no democracy anywhere in Africa or The Middle east.
The place could easily become another Iraq or Sudan. Going to be far to many arms and ammo knocking about
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 23:07
|
You don't think much of Africans then Zero? You think if they have lots of weapons they won't be able to help doing silly things with them?
Not the same as my view. As for Libya becoming 'another Iraq or Sudan', it's so different from each of those countries in just about every way that anything like that is most unlikely.
I think you're talking down the Libyans, in a way many would see as racist - I don't, but I would understand that view - so that you can make our people out to be a bunch of incompetent clowns. Perhaps you're right - again I don't really think so - but there's something distasteful about the whole line you're taking. It's a bit tabloid and not entirely worthy of you. This is international crisis politics, not some damn football game. Tchah!
|
>>This is international crisis politics
It is now, we (the west) have made it so.
But as I have been classed as racist and distasteful then I think Its time I disengaged from this thread.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 01:14
|
|
Why Libya? - Oil - why Iraq? - Oil, - why not zimbabwe? - no Oil. - TuTu can kill millions- no one cares!
|
|
Tutu? That'll be Mugabe then! >:) If we are going to start going round the World roughing up Heads of State who aren't very nice to their subjects it could be a very long list. Mugabe is much more unpleasant to British/white people in his country than the Libyan head of state!
|
|
If every religious leader was like TuTu the world would be a far better place.
|
Oh dear. As I seem to have managed to offend the usually bulletproof Zero I had better retire from it too.
I didn't mean to, for what it's worth. But that's what it's like when you use words. People don't always really understand them.
|
AC, I saw what you were saying. Im very uncomfortable lumping any country in any rather large, general area of the world together and declaring if one is useless, all must be.
I just think back to WW2 and wonder, had we followed todays approach of getting involved when a leader turns on their people, maybe the Jews wouldnt have suffered what they did at the hands of the Nazis for so long and in such a profound way.
|
Race and religion need to be put to one side.
This need to be prsented as democratic nations supporting a people's right to democracy.
Arab and western, islamic and christian, black and white - together fighting for democracy and human rights.
|
|
You are right Cheddar but who decides which "people" are being denied democracy and neeed help? High on the list might be North Korea, a loony at the top, nuclear weapons and no visible democracy at all.
|
>> High on the list might be North Korea, a loony at the top, nuclear
>> weapons and no visible democracy at all.
If the dictators of the world learn anything from this action against Libya, it is to get hold of nukes ASAP.
I bet Gaddafi feels a bit stupid about giving up his nuclear weapons progamme now.
|
Am i alone in thinking we the west (though our leaders do very little in my name) are playing with the most dangerous fire possible.
Playing at 'aiding' democracy in these Arab homelands, indeed any predominantly Muslim lands may well have catastrophic consequences over time.
The regimes in some Arab nations may well be agreeable for a variety of reasons to changing the status quo in neighbouring countries, but there will come a point IMO when a subtle change will occur, and instead of working together we may just see the west classed as aggressors in the whole region.
The whole thing is baffling to me, and i have no answers.
The trouble with taking armed action is that people will be killed indiscriminately, it always happens.
I state again, if someone invades my country and kills my family whether deliberately or as 'acceptable' losses they will make a terrible enemy, a man who has nothing to live for, only the honour of taking a serious revenge before he joins his loved ones.
Is there a politician in the west that can understand that, or are they so obsessed with power and the money it brings that family love and honour (and country) are meaningless.
|
>> Am i alone in thinking
No, GB, you aren't... What worries me is that what they want is different to what we may think they want... And also their definition of "honour" and "reason" IS substantially different to ours...
Anyhow its too late now, we'll just have to wait and see...
And hope for the best...
|
>> I state again, if someone invades my country and kills my family whether deliberately or
>> as 'acceptable' losses they will make a terrible enemy, a man who has nothing to
>> live for, only the honour of taking a serious revenge before he joins his loved
>> ones.
Just my opinion GB, but I don't think that is how it works for most people. I think most people would respond to that by becoming absolutely sickened by violence.
Plenty of people lost loved ones in the Twin Towers but you don't see them strapping explosives to themselves and blowing people up.
How these things can be used is to recruit people to a cause, but those people tend to be psychopaths anyway, who just need a framework to act within, and maybe an excuse.
I wish I could find a copy of it, but there was a fascinating documentary on this a few years back, called "The Truth About Killing" I think.
EDIT: Oh actually someone has uploaded it to YouTube, well worth a look if you have the time.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vlGR7S2wcI
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 10:52
|
>> You are right Cheddar but who decides which "people" are being denied democracy and neeed help? >>
The UN PP.
>>?High on the list might be North Korea, a loony at the top, nuclear weapons and no visible democracy at all. >>
If the regime commences atrocities against its own people or invades another sovereign nation then they could need attention, muuuuuuuch more tricky than Libya though.
|
An update on last nights operations.
tinyurl.com/4hvmr7x
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 13:19
|
>> >>?High on the list might be North Korea, a loony at the top, nuclear weapons
>> and no visible democracy at all. >>
>>
>> If the regime commences atrocities against its own people or invades another sovereign nation then
>> they could need attention
Ahem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korea#Human_rights
>> muuuuuuuch more tricky than Libya though.
Yup
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
|
Yes Stu. If war had been declared at the time of the Anschlusss (Czechoslovakia incursion) the second world war might not have happened, and the deliberate industrial mass murder of Jews took place during the later stages of that war. But it's pointless to speculate about what might have happened. What happened was what happened. And it couldn't have been predicted.
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.
One of many reasons why I shudder at the thought of being prime minister is the need for the person in that role to make decisions on matters of this sort. Any normal person would be paralysed by indecision and tempted to do nothing to be on the safe side. What has now happened is that something started by the Libyan population has sucked us and others into a low-level conflict whose outcome is uncertain (although a Gaddafi military triumph seems unlikely).
One can only hope that the military involvement will be brief, and that it will do the Libyans some good. That can happen and quite often has. In the meantime no one can be blamed for feeling apprehensive.
|
|
Advance warning - about to start volume 3 !!!!!
|
|
Interesting first paragraph - My counter to that would be that Chamberlain tried his very best to delay the onset of war in order for the UK to be better prepared for the inevitable conflict - we were barely ready in September 1939 but by then it was really too late to stop the German war machine - Chamberlain wasn't dithering, he was trying to pick a time of his own choosing to go to war, which leads nicely into your third paragraph. I agree if we'd have gone to war on the Czech incursion the inevitability of WW2 might have been different. I wonder if people think that Libya is a country far away of whose people we know little about....
Last edited by: Pugugly on Sun 20 Mar 11 at 12:53
|
No-fly zone over Libya - Zero
