Taximark Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Nobody knows exactly who these people are. Democratic freedom fighters or tribal opponents of Gaddafi who'd happily slaughter his supporters and civilians given the chance. We shouldn't be picking sides in a civil war. And we shouldn't be supporting some group just because they are our enemy's enemy. We did that in Afghanistan by supporting the nutjobs Mujahadeen...and that really came back to bite us in the ass! I thought that was the Americans that supported the Mujahideen, back then all western countries did, it was against the Soviets who were a major nuclear threat against the US and Britain, the Mujahideen was seen as the freedom fighters, the people of Afghanistan, many of them were good people, it was the carnage that followed after the USSR withdrew that was the cause the problems, Everyone wanted a slice of Afghanistan, the Taliban, originally a group formed in Pakistan wanted the country and to a degree controlled large parts of it and installed sharia law, plus with the arrival of Bin Laden (al qaeda) an ex Mujahideen supporting them, it gave them strength in their fight against the Northern Alliance. I don't buy this America created Bin Laden thing, anyone can turn bad, he's a Saudi that even hates his own country because they expelled him. Hindsight is a wonderful thing etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I'm against arming the Libyan opposition. We don't know who they are or even if they enjoy the support of the majority of Libyans. One thing that hasn't been pointed out yet is the reverse situation that existed in the 1970s/80s when Libya supplied the IRA with arms. Is there any real difference between the IRA of the 1970s/80s and the Libyan rebels of now? We objected to Libya supplying the Irish rebels with arms then, so why are we even considering supplying the Libyan rebels with arms now? If we think it was wrong for Libya to supply armed insurrection in the UK back then how can we consider it right for us to supply armed insurrectionists in Libya now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 He can deny until he's blue in the face, they'll not stop until Gaddafi is gone. And gradually suck us further into yet another war. In politics however words come back to haunt those who speak them. We've all heard that there will be no US troop involvement nor an agenda for regime change and he's commited to that or face political disaster in the 2012 election possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taximark Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I'm against arming the Libyan opposition. We don't know who they are or even if they enjoy the support of the majority of Libyans. One thing that hasn't been pointed out yet is the reverse situation that existed in the 1970s/80s when Libya supplied the IRA with arms. Is there any real difference between the IRA of the 1970s/80s and the Libyan rebels of now? We objected to Libya supplying the Irish rebels with arms then, so why are we even considering supplying the Libyan rebels with arms now? If we think it was wrong for Libya to supply armed insurrection in the UK back then how can we consider it right for us to supply armed insurrectionists in Libya now? We should just stick to what we planned in the first place that is to protect Benghazi from a mass genocide happening, we have achieved this by the NFZ and controlling the skies. I think we are on a dodgy path if we are going to back the rebels because we will ultimately get sucked into a long civil war that will use up even more money, BTW one Tomahawk cruise missile has a reported price tag of around £950'000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 What kind of weaponry are we to arm the rebels with which would make a difference. Unless Ghadaffi's own supporters turn against him then the rebels wont topple him. They're basically a rag tag mob with no professional leadership and little idea of battle strategies. The UN should be pressuring Saudi Arabia to take an effective ground role. The US is up to it's eyeballs in debt. We cant afford the cost of another war. Keeping a single fighter jet operational costs a fortune and firing off the cruise misslies came to about a few hundred thousand a pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taximark Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 What kind of weaponry are we to arm the rebels with which would make a difference. Unless Ghadaffi's own supporters turn against him then the rebels wont topple him. They're basically a rag tag mob with no professional leadership and little idea of battle strategies. The UN should be pressuring Saudi Arabia to take an effective ground role. The US is up to it's eyeballs in debt. We cant afford the cost of another war. Keeping a single fighter jet operational costs a fortune and firing off the cruise misslies came to about a few hundred thousand a pop Saudi Arabia? why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Saudi Arabia? why? Why? Cos they got the money, lots of it and a whole arsenal of modern weaponry, planes, missiles, tanks, heavy artillery. They also have an American trained army. Time they stepped up to the plate. I dont want my tax dollars spent on trying yet again to bring "democracy and freedom" to another Muslim country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 We should just stick to what we planned in the first place that is to protect Benghazi from a mass genocide happening, we have achieved this by the NFZ and controlling the skies. I think we are on a dodgy path if we are going to back the rebels because we will ultimately get sucked into a long civil war that will use up even more money, BTW one Tomahawk cruise missile has a reported price tag of around £950'000. What about Sirte? Gadhaffi's home town? Is the UN goingto beat crap out of the rebel army which is attacking civilians there? What kind of weaponry are we to arm the rebels with...? ... The best kind is the kind which uses a lot of (expensive) ammunition, can be fired randomly up into the air, doesn't take a lot of training to use and is 'fun'. Why? Cos they got the money, lots of it and a whole arsenal of modern weaponry, planes, missiles, tanks, heavy artillery. They also have an American trained army. ... And an Air Force largely supplied and trained by the Brits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 we armed saddam, we armed gaddafi, we armed the taliban, we armed bin laden then we fall out with em politricks....such a fickle game Pretty sure we never really liked Gadaffi, it was the Russians that armed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdyamos Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I think that getting further sucked into this murky situation just as the domestic cuts really start to hurt will be an effective way of pushing the British people into open revolt. We should keep interference to a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.