Libya
26 April 2011, 02:43 PM
#271
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 April 2011, 03:55 PM
#272
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Libya read Iraq
The only difference this time is they have a UN resolution which lasted about a week until they went beyond the terms of it.
Get the picture?
As I said anyone banging on about humanitarian aims is embarrassing themselves... keep going! IT IS ABOUT OIL!!!!
The UNSC didn't pass resolutions for intervention in the countrys to which you allude primarily because China wielded their veto in order to protect their interests (déjà vu). This point has been made by me and others numerous times so please successfully refute it; not doing means you're simply repeating the same flawed argument which could prove embarrassing. The coalition were broadly castigated for taking unilateral action in Iraq, do you want intervention to be legal or fair or both, as it is in Libya?
No idea why you keep asking me this? Can't see why we should be a permanent member as it doesn;t exactly heklp us being there. Could we be in a worse mess if we weren't a permanent member? I doubt it!
26 April 2011, 04:46 PM
#273
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO our position as a permanent UN member was earned through the blood, sweat and pain of our heroic WW2 generation, I say keep hold of it as one day a government may indeed step up to the plate and do the right thing with it - rather than using it for short term tactical gain.
26 April 2011, 04:59 PM
#274
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interventions in the Balkans etc proved it is not just about oil.
Does the UN stop the rocket attacks on Israel, the bus bombings? Hezzbollah attacks?
26 April 2011, 05:26 PM
#275
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For genocide read WMD
For Libya read Iraq
The only difference this time is they have a UN resolution which lasted about a week until they went beyond the terms of it.
Get the picture?
As I said anyone banging on about humanitarian aims is embarrassing themselves... keep going! IT IS ABOUT OIL!!!!
I love how you keep trotting this out yet you never mention the US veto employed every time somone tries to stop Israel persecuting the Palestinians, but then that doesn't suit your agenda does it? Let's face it if there was a real motive to do anything about any of these countries something would be done. Are you saying what is happening in Libya is worse than what is happening or has happened in other countries? All I am saying is whatever happens it should be even handed. To conveniently use the excuse that such and such vetoed is just a get out clause that the West are looking for.
No idea why you keep asking me this? Can't see why we should be a permanent member as it doesn;t exactly heklp us being there. Could we be in a worse mess if we weren't a permanent member? I doubt it!
For Libya read Iraq
The only difference this time is they have a UN resolution which lasted about a week until they went beyond the terms of it.
Get the picture?
As I said anyone banging on about humanitarian aims is embarrassing themselves... keep going! IT IS ABOUT OIL!!!!
I love how you keep trotting this out yet you never mention the US veto employed every time somone tries to stop Israel persecuting the Palestinians, but then that doesn't suit your agenda does it? Let's face it if there was a real motive to do anything about any of these countries something would be done. Are you saying what is happening in Libya is worse than what is happening or has happened in other countries? All I am saying is whatever happens it should be even handed. To conveniently use the excuse that such and such vetoed is just a get out clause that the West are looking for.
No idea why you keep asking me this? Can't see why we should be a permanent member as it doesn;t exactly heklp us being there. Could we be in a worse mess if we weren't a permanent member? I doubt it!
The UNSC can't be even handed; see DCI's post, his last point, when applied to each permanent member, explains why.
26 April 2011, 05:38 PM
#277
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 May 2011, 12:15 AM
#278
Super Muppet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Inside out
Posts: 33,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 May 2011, 11:01 AM
#283
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that firing missiles into the middle of Tripoli seems to be a pretty transparent attempt to kill the tyrant which I think is beyond the terms of the UN resolution.
The killed a couple of members of his family with the last one.
Les
The killed a couple of members of his family with the last one.
Les
01 May 2011, 11:17 AM
#284
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we are really so long as we don't harm the little fella 
The alleged NATO strike is all a bit fishy. We are making such a fuss about no direct hits on him that it is all a bit odd that NATO bombs his son's pad. Can't work it out. I'd have thought they would be looking for a local lad to put a bullet in his head as the better option. dl
The alleged NATO strike is all a bit fishy. We are making such a fuss about no direct hits on him that it is all a bit odd that NATO bombs his son's pad. Can't work it out. I'd have thought they would be looking for a local lad to put a bullet in his head as the better option. dl
01 May 2011, 01:33 PM
#287
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 May 2011, 12:25 PM
#288
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I suspected all along the mess just gets worse:
NATO must widen targets
Well at least we are now admitting it was all about regime change after all 
Stalemate leaves NATO with no 'Plan B'
So the usual lack of planning then.
They learnt zip all from Iraq and Afghanistan despite the promises of 'lessons will be learned'
NATO must widen targets
Originally Posted by General Sir David Richards
Direct attacks should be launched against the infrastructure propping up Colonel Gaddafi's regime. It is necessary to prevent the Libyan dictator remaining in power.
Stalemate leaves NATO with no 'Plan B'
So the usual lack of planning then.
They learnt zip all from Iraq and Afghanistan despite the promises of 'lessons will be learned'
16 May 2011, 12:28 PM
#289
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICC requesting arrest warrants for Gadaffi, his son the head of espionage for crimes against humanity.
Apparently if they are granted they will need to be served by troops on the ground..... yet we are assured there will be no troops on the ground... Hmmmm
Apparently if they are granted they will need to be served by troops on the ground..... yet we are assured there will be no troops on the ground... Hmmmm
16 May 2011, 12:37 PM
#290
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they might call into the Vatican like that nice Mr Mugabe did recently? dl
16 May 2011, 01:21 PM
#292
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 May 2011, 02:00 PM
#293
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regime change, mission creep, no misson goal, no 'plan B', no end in sight, increasing dissent from other nations, financial drain.... oh and civilians are still dying only now we are killing some of them too
16 May 2011, 02:47 PM
#294
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you rather let Gadaffi slaughter his enemies and win?
I can see a valid Clausewitzian argument for that but you are miles away from finding it.
16 May 2011, 02:54 PM
#295
Scooby Regular
it was quite upsetting to read about the NATO forces that sailed and flew past an overcrowded refugee ship, leaving over 50 to die of hunger and thirst
17 May 2011, 11:36 AM
#296
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 May 2011, 12:20 PM
#297
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 May 2011, 01:01 PM
#299
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's only a civil war because the UN intervened, otherwise it would have been a brutally suppressed uprising and the world would have endorsed Gaddafism by inaction. The UK are a permanent member of the UN so we have a duty and an obligation on the world stage - it is our problem. One of the duties and obligations is to follow through on our missions, as we did in the Balkans.
If you don't like that, your position ought to be that you wish for the UK to withdraw its status of permanency from the UN or that you'd prefer the UN to not actually do anything, a la the League of Nations.
If this is to end relatively swiftly, Gadaffi needs to go, and that will be regime change. Leave Gadaffi in place; there's the potential for a long and bloody civil war and stalemate. Don't get involved in the first place? Shelve the UN.
If you don't like that, your position ought to be that you wish for the UK to withdraw its status of permanency from the UN or that you'd prefer the UN to not actually do anything, a la the League of Nations.
If this is to end relatively swiftly, Gadaffi needs to go, and that will be regime change. Leave Gadaffi in place; there's the potential for a long and bloody civil war and stalemate. Don't get involved in the first place? Shelve the UN.