Libya
 

The subject seems to be cropping up all over the place, it's clearly one that's divisive and I think and feel people wish to express their views.

Let's keep it about the issues, let's challenge without getting personal, let's keep it respectful. Please don't use RTM or 'lock the thread, please' to wriggle out of awkward questions but, if a user becomes abusive, use the function and let the mods make a call. Mods, if you could prune and/or have a word, that would be great.

I've backed intervention from the start and, indeed, prior to United Nations Resolution 1973 being passed. I support the government's position. :)

Sky had an interview with some British Libyan guy yesterday I think, he said he was in Benghazi, and that Gadaffi forces had been using heavy weapons indiscriminately against civilians and that the allied intervention had saved lots of lives.

He seemed like he was very truthful in contrast to the liars that the regime keep sticking in front of the cameras in Tripoli.

But why are WE there? Why has OUR government decided to put OUR troops in line of fire, especially when the majority of people in this country, according to all the polls I've seen, are AGAINST doing so?

Dave

What poll was that exactly?

I'm sure Google will come to your rescue there ... :thumb:

Back to the subject in hand, interesting interview on RT, over 9 mins long but worth listening to. Strange how certain things aren't getting reported in the UK media .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqKdD...layer_embedded ...

Dave

Sorry I can't be bothered watching a 9 min clip of a dodgy Russian news channel. :)

I am with you on that, especially one that appears to feature Nigel Farage.

Such a pity that the same country which chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2003 is now the focus of a UN no-fly mandate due to its treatment of its civilian population. Now that's not to say they were 'whiter than white' but they had potential... oops, sorry.... back to the bun fight :thumb:

I don't see the point of not taking Gadafty out, or at least making him stand down. :confused:

It's all a bit PC, you can't be seen to be attacking an individual these days it has to look like a faceless regime that you're changing... :Suspiciou

I reckon the Yanks could 'rescue' him :D

what's your endgame JT - fair representation and justice system or starbucks on every corner and the X faxtor on primetime saturday night TV

That's an odd question. I don't see the reason behind it.

We are there because this country's elected government believe in market-lead liberal democracy and wish to support groups who are like minded. We are there as a permanent member of the UNSC and because we, alongside our French partners and Lebanon, tabled the draft resolution. We are there because we could intervene. We are there because the people in Banghazi were on the cusp of being massacred. It's legal, it's in the long-term interests of our country and its partners across the globe. It was, and is the right thing to do.

What a complete load of bollux as a reason to risk UK lives!

Dave

Are those the two options and are they opposing? Universal suffrage, a free market and a free media would certainly be desirable.

It's the job of the armed forces to fulfill the political will of the government.

They know this when they sign up.

I appreciate it's not pc (on SN) to agree with JT ;), but I agree with this.

How about some of the other members taking the lead instead of the UK. It always seems to fall to us. How about Germany, Russia, etc???

Germany and Russia are geographically well positioned.

How about the Arab League of Nations taking the lead and the UNSC supporting them?

We (UK) seem all to ready to get involved and take the responsibility and potential fall-out from this situation.

He's wrong, although according to Question Time on Thursday 43% of people aren't convinced we should be there, therefore a significant minority.

No he's not wrong.

And that minority need to deliver a coherent, credible defence of their position. If I was presented with one which stood-up under scrutiny, I'd change my mind.

I've seen various polls with different outcomes to be fair, I'm not sure there's anything definitive out there.

This is my point, and the answer Mark should have given rather than just dismissing him as wrong:)

Wow, more posts deleted, the Chuckle brothers must be so happy!

Well I could be bothered to watch it and I don't see what is dodgy about it. Farage expressed what I feel about the subject very well indeed (and about the EC at the end of the interview, come to that).

dl

I was a bit pushed for time, but ultimately he is wrong, unless all the polls say the majority is against it. Otherwise, the best he can say is the public's ambivalent about it.

Sure Russia is a haven of free speech and unbiased media reporting. :lol1:

The French and Great Britain were the two permanent UNSC members who tabled the draft resolution alongside non-permanent Lebanon. Lebanon are currently the Middle East's representative on the council.

The Russians traditionally oppose intervention, Kosovo being a good example, and had no incentive to support this one.

As for the Germans, the coalition government have two regional elections tomorrow (Sunday), and prior to the NA uprisings unfolding had pledged, effectively, to adopt an isolationist (some might say provincial) position on the world stage. Dimbleby summed it up nicely on Thursday's Question Time: "a big Switzerland". Former foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, said "Germany has lost its credibility in the United Nations and in the Middle East" and that abstention was a "scandalous mistake". In my view, they've estranged themselves from their allies having left us to do the graft. Whilst I get this, I do not and cannot respect it.

So, when eventually the US broke cover and got behind the draft, the resolution was passed and Gadaffi had to be stopped from showng "no mercy" to the people of Benghazi. The US were already in place in the region and lead the operation with UN backing and, of course, the military backing of France and Britain.

If we lead calls for intervention, we had to be amongst it militarily. If we hadn't lead calls for intervention, who would have? There would have been no intervention. If you back intervention, you back the UK and France leading it.

Moot for reasons outlined above.

How would this have worked, I'd be interested to read your ideas?

And that's a big part of the debate, isn't it? The alternative to doing this is to withdraw our influence from the world stage and lose our capacity to help shape the world order; to become, in our case, a small Switzerland. History suggests we cannot, will not and should not do this.

No. There is no "we" leading calls for intervention. It's Call me Dave having his "lets have a war to put me up there with Churchill" moment. End of! The British people do NOT want us to be there. If ever there was something that sums up how far removed Westminster is from the rest of the population this is it.

Dave