Print

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

[Nickbat]

Not even Dippy Dave would be daft enough to consider such a move. Oh, hold on a second...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i9_bytT-d6TmU3pLgvSXzVS9Q2aQ?docId=CNG.bfb8229dcf908f07a113483065bb30aa.351

Another fine mess they've got us into. 

[Mysteryman]

That would be a stupid move. The weapons invariably end up in the wrong hands.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Yes,  I believe it is one step too far and takes all the Allies into dangerous territory

[Varche]

What are the coalition going to do IF the "rebels" (marvellous word) actually make it to Tripoli and start killing as well as Gadafi and his son , innocent folk who had to show their support for Gadafi by virtue of being in Tripoli?

Perhaps we could then bomb the rebels to allow ..........

It is still all going to end in tears!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

What are the coalition going to do IF the "rebels" (marvellous word) actually make it to Tripoli and start killing as well as Gadafi and his son , innocent folk who had to show their support for Gadafi by virtue of being in Tripoli?

Perhaps we could then bomb the rebels to allow ..........

It is still all going to end in tears!

That is exactly what some commentators were saying at the start of all this Varche   When does the coalition start bombing the rebels who have become a threat to the "other" side of Libyan people?!

Oh dear, it could go so horribly wrong!

[Mysteryman]

What are the coalition going to do IF the "rebels" (marvellous word) actually make it to Tripoli and start killing as well as Gadafi and his son , innocent folk who had to show their support for Gadafi by virtue of being in Tripoli?

Perhaps we could then bomb the rebels to allow ..........

It is still all going to end in tears!

That is exactly what some commentators were saying at the start of all this Varche   When does the coalition start bombing the rebels who have become a threat to the "other" side of Libyan people?!

Oh dear, it could go so horribly wrong!

Not so gung-ho now Lizzie? I said in my original post, 11 days ago, there was no way this was going to be easy.

[cem_devecioglu]

imo, nuke them all , problem finished

no headache then

[PhilRich]

We've no business being involved in any shape or form imo, we're still embroiled in a shooting war in Afghanistan & still inextricably tethered to Iraq for the forseeable future.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

What are the coalition going to do IF the "rebels" (marvellous word) actually make it to Tripoli and start killing as well as Gadafi and his son , innocent folk who had to show their support for Gadafi by virtue of being in Tripoli?

Perhaps we could then bomb the rebels to allow ..........

It is still all going to end in tears!

That is exactly what some commentators were saying at the start of all this Varche   When does the coalition start bombing the rebels who have become a threat to the "other" side of Libyan people?!

Oh dear, it could go so horribly wrong!

Not so gung-ho now Lizzie? I said in my original post, 11 days ago, there was no way this was going to be easy.

I am NEVER Gun=Ho Steve!!   I hate war and what it has done to this world of ours!

However, there are times when the democratic Western powers must be strong and take a stand, as they did not in 1938.  A massive mistake.  Britain and France, with Israel blasting into Suez, a fatal error! The Korean War, very dubious! USA going into Vietnam, a BIG mistake!  Invading Iraq in the way it was, a big mistake!    Driving into Kuwait to push the Iraqi's out, a VERY BIG right thing to do!

As is, in principle, the protection of a country's citizens as in Bosnia, but it didn't completely work!  Protecting the Libyans WAS the correct thing to do, but it must be carefully managed with political foresight; it looks it could go one way or the other!  If Gaddafi military forces keep pushing the rebels with their hardware in the open, the Coalition stands a chance of success.  Ironically if the Rebels become too successful too quickly and start to threaten other innocent Libyans, then there will be tears!!

So, recognising nothing in this world can be measured in black and white terms, many times war is a very bad "solution", at other times it can be a saviour!  How this action will be judged has still to be written

[Mysteryman]

What are the coalition going to do IF the "rebels" (marvellous word) actually make it to Tripoli and start killing as well as Gadafi and his son , innocent folk who had to show their support for Gadafi by virtue of being in Tripoli?

Perhaps we could then bomb the rebels to allow ..........

It is still all going to end in tears!

That is exactly what some commentators were saying at the start of all this Varche   When does the coalition start bombing the rebels who have become a threat to the "other" side of Libyan people?!

Oh dear, it could go so horribly wrong!

Not so gung-ho now Lizzie? I said in my original post, 11 days ago, there was no way this was going to be easy.

I am NEVER Gun=Ho Steve!!   I hate war and what it has done to this world of ours!

However, there are times when the democratic Western powers must be strong and take a stand, as they did not in 1938.  A massive mistake.  Britain and France, with Israel blasting into Suez, a fatal error! The Korean War, very dubious! USA going into Vietnam, a BIG mistake!  Invading Iraq in the way it was, a big mistake!    Driving into Kuwait to push the Iraqi's out, a VERY BIG right thing to do!

As is, in principle, the protection of a country's citizens as in Bosnia, but it didn't completely work!  Protecting the Libyans WAS the correct thing to do, but it must be carefully managed with political foresight; it looks it could go one way or the other!  If Gaddafi military forces keep pushing the rebels with their hardware in the open, the Coalition stands a chance of success.  Ironically if the Rebels become too successful too quickly and start to threaten other innocent Libyans, then there will be tears!!

So, recognising nothing in this world can be measured in black and white terms, many times war is a very bad "solution", at other times it can be a saviour!  How this action will be judged has still to be written

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung-ho

[Lizzie_Zoom]

What are the coalition going to do IF the "rebels" (marvellous word) actually make it to Tripoli and start killing as well as Gadafi and his son , innocent folk who had to show their support for Gadafi by virtue of being in Tripoli?

Perhaps we could then bomb the rebels to allow ..........

It is still all going to end in tears!

That is exactly what some commentators were saying at the start of all this Varche   When does the coalition start bombing the rebels who have become a threat to the "other" side of Libyan people?!

Oh dear, it could go so horribly wrong!

Not so gung-ho now Lizzie? I said in my original post, 11 days ago, there was no way this was going to be easy.

I am NEVER Gun=Ho Steve!!   I hate war and what it has done to this world of ours!

However, there are times when the democratic Western powers must be strong and take a stand, as they did not in 1938.  A massive mistake.  Britain and France, with Israel blasting into Suez, a fatal error! The Korean War, very dubious! USA going into Vietnam, a BIG mistake!  Invading Iraq in the way it was, a big mistake!    Driving into Kuwait to push the Iraqi's out, a VERY BIG right thing to do!

As is, in principle, the protection of a country's citizens as in Bosnia, but it didn't completely work!  Protecting the Libyans WAS the correct thing to do, but it must be carefully managed with political foresight; it looks it could go one way or the other!  If Gaddafi military forces keep pushing the rebels with their hardware in the open, the Coalition stands a chance of success.  Ironically if the Rebels become too successful too quickly and start to threaten other innocent Libyans, then there will be tears!!

So, recognising nothing in this world can be measured in black and white terms, many times war is a very bad "solution", at other times it can be a saviour!  How this action will be judged has still to be written

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung-ho

All right clever cloggs but my spell checker didn't like that so I stuck to Gun Ho; it sounded good to me!

So there!

[albitz]

It is beginning to have some of the hallmarks of Afghanistan - the moronic John Reid, defence secretary at the time thought we may well be in and back out without a single shot being fired - and Afghanistan has gone on longer than the first and second world wars put together.
Get out and stay out of it imo.

[Dishevelled Den]

Aaah – one of the first steps on that familiar path towards mission creep.

I was also puzzled about the definition of ‘civilian’, in terms of the UN resolution touted as being the lawful authority for this action – should any person previously considered to be a civilian/non-combatant take up arms in pursuit of their goals, be justifiably referred to as civilians from that point?

It would be my contention that the allied forces are in breach of that UN resolution by attacking regime forces whilst permitting rebel forces to operate with impunity – this to my mind is tantamount to seeking regime change, a desire not permitted by this resolution and something repeatedly denied as being a goal by allied forces.

It was obvious to me from the get-go that things would develop in this way and I will say again, in spite of all the assurances to the contrary by our political masters, that the logical conclusion to all this is the dispatch of land forces to Libya in a vain attempt to salvage something from this unnecessary action.

This will result of course in yet another cluster-blank to the poorhouse.

[cem_devecioglu]

Aaah – one of the first steps on that familiar path towards mission creep.

I was also puzzled about the definition of ‘civilian’, in terms of the UN resolution touted as being the lawful authority for this action –[size=11] should any person previously considered to be a civilian/non-combatant take up arms in pursuit of their goals, can they justifiably be referred to as civilians from that point[/size]?

It would be my contention that the allied forces are in breach of that UN resolution by attacking regime forces whilst permitting rebel forces to operate with impunity – this to my mind is tantamount to seeking regime change, a desire not permitted by this resolution and something repeatedly denied as being a goal by allied forces.

It was obvious to me from the get-go that things would develop in this way and I will say again, in spite of all the assurances to the contrary by our political masters, that the logical conclusion to all this is the dispatch of land forces to Libya in a vain attempt to salvage something from this unnecessary action.

This will result of course in yet another cluster-blank to the poorhouse.

 

[Olympia5776]

"Oh Mr Cameron I beseech you to consider what you are doing ......."