alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Saw Obama at the weekend talking about Libya, apparently they were NOT there for regime change, but up to and not including.

Today, just seen Cam-moron telling us that no matter what, any government in Libya WITH Gadaffi as ruler will NOT be acceptable.

So regime change, or not?

Jimbob

iTrader: (13)

Better to have a difference of opinion than Blair, all we could see of him with bush was his toe nail sticking out Bush`s ****!!

But tbh I agree with Cameron, and not with Obama.

Just remember who funded and supplied most terrorist organisations in Western Europe, Libya. So we Western Europeans have a particular enthusiasm to get rid of him and to be fair its more than about time.

dpb

I also just cant help thinking the cuddling up to the Pakistani minister ( and shoving 695m into his pocket ) just isnt really going to help us out

JTaylor

Why?

JTaylor

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-related-4/

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

What was it someone said on here about the coalition having a clear objective? As predicted it becomes more and more of an expensive mess each and every day!

dpb

Why would it ?

tony de wonderful

I watched the press conference and the questions from the Pakistani press were moronic in the extreme; what a disaster of a country.

dpb

I presume its some kind of bribe to keep fighting the enemy within and by the way herse some readies to rebuild the bits weve bombed

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Aye, plenty of money to throw at them, but ask for any financial help here in the UK?

Get told to fek off.

After all, we're all in it together, except for foreign countries who get aid, bust EC countries, the bankers, insurance companies, the oil companies............etc etc

JTaylor

That's about it and would expand your point to include the issue of nuclear weapon components being located in the North Western Frontier Province on the border with Afghanistan. This region also happens to have the highest concentration of Islamist combatants on the planet. There's also the issue of massive holes in the education system which leads to poverty, radicalisation and immigration into this country. Should we completely withdraw our 'aid' or reduce it and if so, by how much? Oh, and "695m"? Is that pounds, dollars, metres, 695,000,000 apples and over what period? I ask because the reports I've read quote £60m for education in the first year at which point we'll look at the results and make assessments thereafter.

Lee247

I don't understand how we are in a financial mess, they are making cuts, in the wrong places, in my opinion, too fast and on the easy targets, pensioners winter allowance, disabled, nurses. And the latest, lets freeze pay on our Soldiers, eh Yet, they still have money to send us into another war that is not our problem.
This really concerns me, a lot
I am not impressed with this lot at all. I have no hopes for this Country at the moment, and if I was younger I would be outtahere

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Whilst on the radio there are constant army recruitment adverts. FFS.

JTaylor

The country needs to provide a secure future for its grandchildren, has a historical obligation to fulfil and needs to protect itself against economic collapse. This means incomes will be squeezed and services will be affected and, whilst that hurts, we need to support the country and tough it out.

Our grandparents made far greater sacrifices than we can begin to imagine.

dpb

You presumably mean stick our oar in as many conflicts as possible in order to benefit from any fallout ( orders ) after it all dies down

We not after all actually at war with any country , as far as im aware

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yep, that's about the size of it. In the meantime talk about moral obligation, humanitarian aims and a united front with a clear objective so as to fool the population into supporting another ill thought out military folly with no real plan. Judging by some posts on here it seems to have worked!

tony de wonderful

So it's now 'no plan' but the other day you were talking about The West's 'agenda'.

So which is it?

JTaylor

No, that isn't what I mean. If I meant that, I would have said it. I meant exactly what I wrote.

Well spotted.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The batlte has no plan, the war however definitely has one. For starters to give America a continued military presence in the ME. Just in case it feels the need to increase its country invaded/not invaded ratio a little. Iran next maybe? What better way than to conveniently have never ending conflicts with no clear end game.

The UK of course will just do anything the US tell us to.

tony de wonderful

So what is the point of promoting never ending conflicts in the ME and how is it giving the US a presence given that there are no troops on the ground?

Careful you don't injure yourself tying yourself in knots!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No troops on the ground in the ME? Really?

tony de wonderful

Are you that obtuse? It's quite clear 'it' is Libya.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

LOL - pot meet kettle.

Are you that obtuse as to not understand why I wrote ME. It stands for Middle East. You then restricted it to Libya!

It's very simple. If the US wants a continued presence in the ME then what better way to do it than find a never ending excuse to be there. Iraq is that excuse and Libya may be needed in case Iraq comes to a point where they are no longer needed despite their best efforts otherwise.

Remember Libya was going to be over in no time. Now it's at least six months.

No troops on the ground in Libya today? What tomorrow?

tony de wonderful

Ok I'll speak slowly for you:

You said Libya was a way to give the US a middle east presence and I said how is that because they have no troops there on the ground.

Why does the US need to spend billions and hundreds of lives then in fighting wars for the only purpose of giving them an ME presence when they have bases already in the ME and a fleet always in the Arabian gulf?

Doesn't sound very efficient?

JTaylor

Morning f1,

First point, UNSCR 1973 was tabled by France, GB and Lebanon and the US were reluctant owing to how it would be viewed at home. It was considered an issue for Europe and the Arab region but, they are our allies (we've fought totalitarian ideologies such as National Socialism and Communism and now Islamism together) and supported us.

Second point, what you're setting up, the notion of perpetual war, is an unfalsifiable argument. This is the key to any conspiracy theory. Remember that, partly owing to people with a similar outlook to you, the free world made the error of appeasing totalitarianism in the 20s and 30s and it didn't do much good, did it?

JTaylor

Try not get in to another squabble fellas, ffs. It's pointless. Keep it about the issues.

JTaylor

OK, so what I think you're saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that allied forces are positioning themselves so that they are ready, when the time comes, to invade the Iranian Islamic Republic? Is that right? Under what conditions would allied forces wish to invade the Iranian Islamic Republic, f1?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Take a guess. After all you're the self professed ME political genius on this forum!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No I didn't. I said the battle (Libya) has no plan, the war (the entire ME) definitely does. Slow enough for you???

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)