Rupert_Baehr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 As an isolationist, Rupert, I imagine your stance is consistent, and you also believe we shouldn't be interfering in the civil war in Libya... Yes. I certainly believe that neither the UK nor the US should interfere in Libya. The first 'port of call' for the Libyan rebels should (IMO) be the Arab league, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the UN. If the UN decides to respond, then let them call upon local (Arab) Air Forces first to do the job. Given that the Arab League have already said that they support a 'no-fly' zone and given that they appear to have 'recognised' the legitimacy of the Libyan rebels, then let the Arab League impose the 'no-fly' zone. We - 'the coalition of the willing' - invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein and earned the undying gratitude of pi88ed off most of the Arab world. After Saddam was overthrown, the Iraqis started signing oil contracts. Was the first major contract signed a contract to supply the coalition with oil? - Not quite. It was a contract to supply oil to China. It's (IMO) time to learn the lesson. And that lesson isn't about 'who oil producers sell oil to' (they'll sell it to whoever will buy and every barrel of oil the Chinese (for example) buy from Libya is a barrel of oil they won't buy from elsewhere.) The lesson is about (again, IMO) respecting the sovereign rights and morés of countries which may not think like westerners do, which may have different values and standards and which may well not appreciate western interference in their affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I wonder how the British public would feel if one day they decided to go on a demo and were faced with thousands of French soliders ! We would call it a invasion ! The main reason why the west supports this sort of action my lie in the fact that bharian is home to the largest war armada this world has ever seen! Possibly poised to strike Iran with in a year or so ! While I agree that the Saudis going in is wrong and fully support the democratic aspirations of the shiite populace of Bahrain to describe the remaining bits of our old naval base that the americans took over as the home of the largest war armada the world has ever seen is a tad silly. The fifth fleet could operate from umpteen ports in the gulf and the naval support facility while convenient is not essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sausage Dog Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 It's not an invasion if they are invited in by the ruling government. (Have they been?) Someone wil correct me on thsi I'm sure, but didn't the Austrian government 'invite' Hitler. Now I'm not saying the Sauds are the same as Hitler (although the share some common views on tollerance), but look where that invite got us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I wonder how the British public would feel if one day they decided to go on a demo and were faced with thousands of French soliders ! We would call it a invasion ! Didn't that happen about 945 years ago? Channel Islanders (the only remaining subjects of what was William of Normandy's lands) are obliged to fight on three occasions: 1. To protect the person of their Liege Lord, the Duke of Normandy (aka Queen Elizabeth the Second.) 2. To protect her family. (The Duke's - we don't go in for Duchesses ) [the Duchess of Normandy was a ferry] and 3. To invade England ... again. The main reason why the west supports this sort of action my lie in the fact that bharian is home to the largest war armada this world has ever seen! Possibly poised to strike Iran with in a year or so ! I don't know about 'the largest war armada the world has ever seen' - It's the home of US Naval Forces Central Command and the 5th Fleet. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the US intends to use the 5th fleet to invade Iran? - If so, please post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I appreciate your opinion, but (and perhaps I tend slightly towards 'isolationism') I feel we (and indeed every country) should keep its nose out of other countries' civil wars. Surely if the Saudis kept their noses out there won't BE a civil war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Perhaps so. Would there be a bloody coup? - Perhaps. If the Saudis interfere (and lets not forget that the House of Saud has good reason to 'discourage' uprisings in neighbouring states,) then they can persuade the Arab League why they did so and if the Arab League is not persuaded, they can take whatever action they see fit against the House of Saud. It's an Arab problem. Or an Arab League problem. - They are quite capable of deciding how they want to run their countries, aren't they? Who interfered in the various civil wars in European history? Who interfered in the American civil war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Surely if the Saudis kept their noses out there won't BE a civil war? The reason for the Saudi troops being invited is because there already is one. (Although, reportedly, at least one side of it is not resorting to violence.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Quick, send some more arms manufacturers out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Let the Arabs sort it out. Getting involved in the middle east has proved to be like falling into a snake pit. The US and Europe are NOT the world's policemen. I hope that if the Arab League and the UN start looking to Obama to get involved he tells them to get stuffed or diplomatic words to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 While I agree that the Saudis going in is wrong and fully support the democratic aspirations of the shiite populace of Bahrain to describe the remaining bits of our old naval base that the americans took over as the home of the largest war armada the world has ever seen is a tad silly. The fifth fleet could operate from umpteen ports in the gulf and the naval support facility while convenient is not essential. Sir the FIFTH fleet is the largest armada this world has ever seen ! And undoublty the most deadliest ! If they could operate from anywear in the world why not stay at home ! But I guess American imprialism won't be as effective as having military bases around the globe ! Fifth fleet is thier for Iran ! Ever since Iranian people rejected western backed dictators an western oil companies they have been the number one enemy in that region ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.