Libya Right or Wrong!

I know that it is a while since Lockerbie , and there is a sort of Karma about what is happening now!
I know there is a UN mandate in place ,but are we exceeding it already,the terminology was a bit Woolly
What happens if Saudi become involved (one side or the other)
The reason we are there is protecting oil interests! If no oil then the western world wouldnt give a toss about Libya,just like many african states!! The humanitarian angle doesnt cut it with me!
Yes Gaddafi is a monster ,but remove him and what comes up in the Vacuum?
At least Libya honours its oil obligations and contracts (or did) to the western world !!
What happens if we get religious extremists seize control! Yemen Saudi Bahrain Syria etc are all having problems is it wise to further de-stabilize the Region!

So this latest Action Right or Wrong!

 

Wrong. Like you say, if it wasn't for the oil, we wouldn't be bothered. It's like Japan v Pakistan. Pakistan has a major earthquake that kills over 100,000 and it's in the news for a few days and disappears. Japan has a Tsunami/earthquake...and there's concerts and fundraisers and lordy knows what else. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to raise money for Japan, but just because they supply us with all sorts of electronics and components and cars, doesn't make it right that we should ignore countries like Pakistan, regardless of their politics.

Sorry, little off topic! lol

So yep, wrong. i don't agree that we should storm into a country because of what we can get out of it and yes, what could replace the current regime could be scary. Sadly though, it's the way of the world, and it's inevitable that we would wade in with our size 15s.

 

Couldn't agree more Norway - the day we do to Mugabwe what we are doing in Libya will perhaps show that we are genuine humanitarians but silly me I forgot - Zimbabwe has no oil

 

I like also about not606 that there is no artificial restriction on "chat" - yes we are all linked by football - especially Watford - but it is good to share opinions on wider issues if you want to - plenty of threads will always be "politics free"

 

Ok, I'll go........

It's the right action as Gaddafi is attacking his own people and this must be stopped, they should be allowed to speak if their country is not being run the way they want. Could you imagine David Cameron issuing those kind of orders during the student riots (I know it's not a great comparison).

But you are right about the oil interest. No-one would care if Libya had nothing to offer us!!! So on that side it is the wrong decision.

We always jump into someone else's fight whether we (the general public) think it's right or wrong. Who knows what deals go on in the back rooms of government.

I'll stop now as I'm starting to sound like some political thriller novel.

 

Wrong. Killing people is plain wrong but the answer isn't more aggression (I really hate this concept that a "no fly zone" is not an act of war). Negotiated peace may take a long time but surely that is the real humanitarian way?

 

Some would say that Saudi Arabia is already an extremist nation, their faith (Wahhabi Islam) although a group within Sunni Islam is regarded as heretical for some of its ideas. That nation has given its support to the chastisement of Libya in a deal that ignores what they are doing in Bahrain.

Muammar Abu-Minyar al-Gaddafi should have been removed many years ago, whether by the Libyan people or other agencies. What is going on now is not a movement by certain nations to protect oil flow (as whichever regime emerges victorious will carry on selling to the world market, although if Gaddafi is not deposed he will be loathed to sell to the west) but one to protect the infrastructure before Gaddafi's forces and/or the rebels destroy it. If anyone attempts to portray this as an attack on islam it is not, it is the response to the attack on an islamic population by another moslem, unfortunately the response has come from predominantly christian nations which will enable the moslem/christian stirrers to start spitting their religious bile.

Believe it or not the current regime in Libya needs to be brought to account for many years of exporting terrorism, Lockerbie bombing, support for the Provisional IRA, the murder of PC Fletcher, financing the PLO and Black September, etc.

Perhaps the international efforts are heavy handed and this is an operation that should not be done now, because it should have been done 25 years ago, but something needs to be done to protect the Libyans from their rulers.

I wait with apprehension for the reaction to the attack on "islam" from Tehran and Luton.

 

If Libya were not an oil state I do not believe we would be taking military action. We supplied arms to them for years - who did we intend Gaddafi to use them on?

Should we attack China next for their appalling human rights record? I would guess there are many regimes as bad as if not worse than Gaddafi's but we ignore them - as I said before Zimbabwe is a prime example.

We need to grow up as a nation and realise that our colonial days are past and that we are not wanted or required to use force in other countries affairs. The Arab league were said to have requested the no fly zone although surprise surprise they now seem against it - there are plenty of Arab countries to whom we have sold arms - if they believe they should intervene then let them - we should mind our own business. Solving the world's problems is not our right or duty.

Just my tuppence worth

 

Would be nice if we could say arab problem let them sort it out!,However historically the arabs are very tribal(bit like us footie fans) and some like the bedoiun are nomadic with no respect for boundarys !,What I am trying to say is to leave the problem to the arab league wouldnt work , I respect the fact that Gaddaffi and his troops are killing civilians (as are the rebels no doubt)! But the west was correct to intercede,but incorrect in the the manner they have done so!

 

I am against oppression and injustice.... for me it is hard to stand by and let people be tortured and killed.
I have been involved in a movement supporting the people of Tibet over the years. 1,000,000 people there have been killed and those who could have done stood back and let the Chinese do as they would.
A couple of years back Chinese border guards shot in cold blood a group a of Tibetan refugees seeking to cross the border.. one or two of them fled to a group of western climbers who were doing a mountain climb who then hid them from the Chinese. They didn't think politics or oil or money.... they acted out of humanity.

It is about time humanity ruled on this world not money, power,politics oil etc.

From the perspective of humanity I support the current action.

 

Norway - in Russia and China, not to mention Zimbabwe again people are killed or "disappeared" - should we take military action there too? Or is it that they could fight back?

 

I have to agree with most of the points made so far. If oil wasn't there, we wouldn't be either. However, it is wrong to stand back and watch people being mercilessly killed. But, I don't understand how anyone can use the humanitarian side of the argument as a reason to wade into this mess, especially when there is so much worse happening elsewhere. I used to know someone who came from Zimbabwe, and one day a group of armed men stormed their home and threatened to kill them if they didn't leave. These men were acting for the "government".

If we are in Libya, then we should be attacking quite a few other countries in the interest of human rights, otherwise this humanitarian argument has no basis in fact. Yet another example of governments looking out for themselves.

 

I think that the oil argument is mis-leading in this instance. Libya only supplies about 3% of the worlds oil, an amount that can easily be filled by OPEC. In fact they have already agreed to make up any shortfall.

Clearly there are many other murdering tyrants about in the world, but this is a case where the people have had enough, start an uprising that intially appeared to be successful, but then turned to the world to seek help when the aircraft and tanks were turned on them. When you see that countries such as Norway and Denmark, hardly two of the most warlike nations agree to support the UN resolution, along with the Arab League, then you have to believe that there is something different happening here.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame supports coalition operations in Libya, welcoming the fact that "lessons" of the genocide in his country have been learnt, but he called the African Union to act "quickly ". The world wishes to see the back of Gaddaffi, but then if he is removed, hopefully by his own people, there could be tribal problems between the east and the west of the country.

Although I do not enjoy what is going on I think that on balance it is the right thing to do.

 

Well put OFH - but I am not sure I am yet convinced

 

It is interesting to see the different way that the goings on are reported in France and the UK.

The big difference here is, there is a lot more talk about the aid by way of medicine and food that needs to be delivered to the people. I have not noticed too much reporting on the beeb along those lines.

 

If this was purely limited to enforcing a "no fly zone" as was originally sold to us, I might think it was OK. But it is not and it will escalate to attacking ground positions that are not even close to the rebels. Then it will be supporting the rebels with military aid and "advisors" - nice next gig for all the yankee "security experts" that are no longer coining it in Iraq. My question has always been, what is the line and who decides where it is drawn?

 

I am sick to death of people blaming this conflict on oil. Libya is in my territory and I spend (spent!!!) quite a few weeks there every year and havew met with board members of NOC (National Oil Company) as well as executives responsible for the major libyan oil operating companies. We have been in the process of expanding our investment in Libya and all of this has been destroyed by this conflict. We had excellent relationships with the Libyan energy infrastructure and there is absolutely no logical reason for "the West" to upset what was a fairly satisfactory status quo. Over the past three years I have heard much more outward expression of disatisfaction with the regime from the people who really run the assets in the country. These people wanted to see a fair system with opportunity for Libyans but also an expectation that the Libyans would advance themselves on merit. All of this was not available. I've recently been to Benghazi and the disatisfaction with the regime there was extreme, it always has been with a resentment of the government and investment in Tripoli. This war is costing us a fortune in a) taxes to pay for the war effort and b) lost revenues due to cessation of business. On this occasion the reason for going in is humanitarian but in my mind misguided as the replacement infrastructure for government has not been identified and by dismantling the security forces we open up a vipers nest of tribal feuds which will cause long term hardship. What we need to do is "WORK ON THE PEACE" war is easy to start, a long lasting prosperous Libya is much more difficult to put in place.

 

I thought Libýa supplied about 2% of the oil in the world but 20% of what Europe uses. I try to find figures but did not.

Help the Libýan people escape from Moammar Gaddafi and his cruel regime.

 

Oh and I believe we should also intervene in Zimbabwe, Palestine and Luton, in fact start with carpet bombing of Luton sounds like a fine idea never did like the airport.

 

No Europe consumes about 15million barrels a day and Libya never produced above its OPEC quota of 1.8million barrels so even if they exported their entire quota to Europe it would only be just over 10%, the issue is the quality of Libyan crude is excellent and feeds our refineries whereas the opening of the saudi taps only dumps more high sulphur crude on the market which we cannot process in those same refineries. Be assured this conflict is a pain in the aris.