Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

I see we are now committing Apache helicopters to the task (whatever the task is).

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=157862824

I bet privately the Nato heads are furious that they have failed to accidentally elimate the Gadafi family before now.

Like quite a few of us said months ago, just what is our exit strategy? 

[Banjax]

I doubt they were thinking of an exit strategy but I'd rather we dived in to stop a massacre and worry about it later than dither about watching people die

[Dishevelled Den]

I doubt they were thinking of an exit strategy but I'd rather we dived in to stop a massacre and worry about it later than dither about watching people die

I would have thought that 'we' would have paid attention to the harsh lesson of acting without strategic thought.

There's plenty of dead Iraqi's and an increasing number of dead Afghani's who stand testament to the stupidity of this action.

What next - Syria, Yemen?

It was obvious from the get-go that there would have to be a ground force commitment in Libya, yet out political masters lied through their teeth to deny this.

Where are they getting the money from to fund this action?

In this case might is not right and this action is but empire building in a part of the world seldom at ease with itself, never mind troublesome infidels trying to stick their boots into the doorway.

[Banjax]

you can't let a dictator openly declare murder on thousands of citizens and expect the rest of the world to look the other way Den, unless its in Africa....or they have nukes....or they dont have oil....

[Dishevelled Den]

you can't let a dictator openly declare murder on thousands of citizens and expect the rest of the world to look the other way Den, unless its in Africa....or they have nukes....or they dont have oil....

Yes I do agree BJ and it does little good for that fact but, by extension, the ramifications of interfering in this particular region are subsequently greater than trying to sort the iniquities of the tribal and often incestuous system of 'government' seen in sub-Saharan Africa.

That aside, one could understand the validity of this action if it were based on the morality of concern for oppressed peoples - but we all know that it's nothing more than a jockeying for position, power and influence in the region.

Would the numbers of those subsequently killed in Iraq – where regime change was forced - have been as great had the 'West' not invaded?

In my view the time to act in the region is when a situation has run its course (in terms of regime change) and when the majority of the people are satisfied with the result and actually ask for help to rebuild their country.

However, help should only be considered (on the scale of nation regeneration) if those offering it can actually afford to give it and, by doing so, don’t deny their own people by giving it - but as ever, the peculiar political structure of the region should be uppermost in the minds of those who think that ‘western’ values and ‘democracy’ will be easily applied in a region that has survived under the dictator’s boot or tribal group for so long.

If that means that we and our military power should keep out of it then that's what we should do, because as far as I can see, we have opened yet another can or worms in a region where more military interference by the 'West' is the last thing to be considered.

This action will cost us dearly and will destabilise a part of the region to the extent where the results such interference may well have profound political and strategic consequences for the foreseeable future.

[cem_devecioglu]

you can't let a dictator openly declare murder on thousands of citizens and expect the rest of the world to look the other way Den, unless its in Africa....or they have nukes....or they dont have oil....

Yes I do agree BJ and it does little good for that fact but, by extension, the ramifications of interfering in this particular region are subsequently greater than trying to sort the iniquities of the tribal and often incestuous system of 'government' seen in sub-Saharan Africa.
That aside, one could understand the validity of this action if it were based on the morality of concern for oppressed peoples - but we all know that it's nothing more than a jockeying for position, power and influence in the region.
Would the numbers of those subsequently killed in Iraq – where regime change was forced - have been as great had the 'West' not invaded?

In my view the time to act in the region is when a situation has run its course (in terms of regime change) and when the majority of the people are satisfied with the result and actually ask for help to rebuild their country.

However, help should only be considered (on the scale of nation regeneration) if those offering it can actually afford to give it and, by doing so, don’t deny their own people by giving it - but as ever, the peculiar political structure of the region should be uppermost in the minds of those who think that ‘western’ values and ‘democracy’ will be easily applied in a region that has survived under the dictator’s boot or tribal group for so long.

If that means that we and our military power should keep out of it then that's what we should do, because as far as I can see, we have opened yet another can or worms in a region where more military interference by the 'West' is the last thing to be considered.
This action will cost us dearly and will destabilise a part of the region to the extent where the results such interference may well have profound political and strategic consequences for the foreseeable future.

 

[cleggy]

Just nuke the lot of 'em
Preferably we keep our noses out
It seems to me that we only act for an ulterior motive:- OIL.
Mugabe has murdered the whole of Rhodesia that don't agree with him, yet we do nothing