Harleyman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree, almost entirely except that I reckon Libya will end up being a disaster as well. They have the money from oil to rebuild and recover once the shooting match is over. They wont be coming cap in hand to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Agreed, but being as we can't win in Afghanistan or Iraq we probably won't win in Libya either so this could well be a strain on our limited resources for many years to come. Although they do have oil, like you say (who knows we might even make a profit) which is why we are so keen, as a pose to Zimbabwe which would definately cost us mega - bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Agreed, but being as we can't win in Afghanistan or Iraq we probably won't win in Libya either so this could well be a strain on our limited resources for many years to come. Although they do have oil, like you say (who knows we might even make a profit) which is why we are so keen, as a pose to Zimbabwe which would definately cost us mega - bucks. There is no mandate to put American, British or French troops into Libya. The UN mandate called for a no fly zone to be enforced only. Obama categorically stated the other day that no US troops were to be involved. Khadafy will more than likely either step down or be killed within the next month or so or a truce between him and the rebels established either by the UN or the Arab League. Whatever happens Libya wont become another Afghanistan or Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I hope you are right, time will tell I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yep for starting another war thats nothing to do with us. Do you think that 20 - 30 years of Libyan state sponsored terrorism that killed and maimed thousands of UK citizens on UK soil might provide us with more than a passing interest? Really? Thousands on UK soil; please clarify - together with statistics. How do you think our provision/selling of arms to various countries over the past 20,30.40 years is viewed in many muslim/arabic/eastern european/asian countries. Probably been responsible for far more than Libya in the eyes of our critics. I still don't think it's any of our business. Why don't we stick our noses into Zimbabwe? Oh yeah of course I forgot: no oil. You are seemingly very young so you will remember your school lessons more clearly than most of us on how to carry out historical research. Since most of us know what my post means I'll encourage you to do your own rather than me spoon feeding it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 You are seemingly very young so you will remember your school lessons more clearly than most of us on how to carry out historical research. Since most of us know what my post means I'll encourage you to do your own rather than me spoon feeding it to you. hmmm the caged rat hits out with insults because of pressure and irritation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoni_mouse Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Really? Thousands on UK soil; please clarify - together with statistics. How do you think our provision/selling of arms to various countries over the past 20,30.40 years is viewed in many muslim/arabic/eastern european/asian countries. Probably been responsible for far more than Libya in the eyes of our critics. I still don't think it's any of our business. Why don't we stick our noses into Zimbabwe? Oh yeah of course I forgot: no oil. There are numurous reasons for us not to get involved in Zimbabwe. Firstly, there would be no popular support amongst the majority of the Zimbabweans (sp?) for us to to go in - we would be seen by the vast majority as old world colonials (something which Mugabe would be more than happy to exploit). Secondly, and more practically, how would we launch attacks? From where? There are no bases for us to launch air strikes, we currently have no aircraft carriers available (and even if we did, they would carry insufficient forces to practically achieve anything) and none of Mugabe's neighbours would be likely to offer us use of their facilities for such attacks. And then of course theres the question of what our aims would be - liberation? from whom and to who? Regime change? That's a big moral no-no, according to most of the chattering types. So what would we do there? The whole 'it's all about oil' thing is wearing a bit thin, frankly. Have any of the critics ever sat down and thought, I mean REALLY thought about how vital oil and all the products it creates are to modern western life? You can criticise wars fought for oil all you want (and I still dont believe that oil is the primary reason for the actions in Libya) but until you start to live lives where you minimise the use of oil and it byproducts, you should probably realise how silly you sound... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You are seemingly very young so you will remember your school lessons more clearly than most of us on how to carry out historical research. Since most of us know what my post means I'll encourage you to do your own rather than me spoon feeding it to you. Wrong! You are the one making the exaggerated claims, not me. I can carry out historical research, but choose not to do so because I don't see the point in looking for something which doesn't exist. How many acts of terrorism have been proven in an international court of law to be sponsored by Libya? Very few? Zero? Why do you resort to insults; is it a sign of your own personal lack of security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 If one country killed the leader of another country when war has not been declared surely this would be classed as murder if he was specifically targeted. Very probably. It's certainly illegal in the US and given that laws tend to be made by politicians, it would hardly be surprising if politicians passed laws which said 'it is illegal to kill politicians.' Cant blame the Yanks for this one. I dont think Obama was very happy to get into it but it's all about the curse of the three major western military powers getting stuck with the role of policemen and being the "Johnny's on the Spot" when the UN need someone to sort out a mess, ... No doubt it will only be a matter of time before the facts leading up to this war become distorted and the cry of "The bad old Yanks are killing Muslims again" become the rant of the day. Obama seems to have anticipated the problem (to some extent) this time. He has already said: "The Libyan venture will not be under the command and control of the US. It will be headed by England, or by France or by NATO, but it will not be headed by the US." In other words: "If and when it becomes time to hand out the blame, I'm having nothing to do with it. America is not going to be held responsible." There is no mandate to put American, British or French troops into Libya. The UN mandate called for a no fly zone to be enforced only. Obama categorically stated the other day that no US troops were to be involved. Khadafy will more than likely either step down or be killed within the next month or so or a truce between him and the rebels established either by the UN or the Arab League. Whatever happens Libya wont become another Afghanistan or Iraq For the US. Cameron may think otherwise. He did not rule out British Forces on the ground in Libya. There may be no mandate for troops on the ground at the moment, but if Gaddhaffi is deposed and there are serous law and order problems in Libya, how long do you think it will be before the UN starts asking the people who started the Air actions to send in ground forces? The invasion of Iraq was successful initially, but once the first wave of fighting stopped, there were no police to keep the peace and to restore law and order. The Baathists and all the local police forces had been removed and there was a 'Law and Order' vacuum. If Gaddhaffi is deposed and his government organisations (perhaps including the police?) are disbanded, who is going to fill the gap? Not a cruise missile or a fighter aircraft. Not combat soldiers, either. - A few thousand Military Police might do the job, but AFAIK, neither the UK nor France nor NATO has access to a few thousand MPs. A few weeks ago Cameron was cutting back the UK Armed Forces. Since then he's increased their workload and appears to be hinting that they could be involved in yet another long-term occupation project. How long? In a shock admission, U.K. ministers have admitted the intervention in Libya could last for up to '30 years'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.