enforcing a no fly zone is one thing! but if libyas air assets stay on the ground is it necessary for the RAF to destroy them! was some nice museum pieces there
Libya Right or Wrong!
- Thread starter Norwayhornet
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I read we've advanced the rebels a US$1.1 billion credit line, isn't that a bit risky given there is no guarantee as to how it could possibly be repaid, add to that the 100million we're spending every day why cant they just throw 0.1% of the costs of this conflict at our football club? Advancing that sort of credit means that ythe government thinks they know the end positions, hope its not as spectacular a miscalculation as Englands Grand Slam!!!!!
Yeah ,but you know what politicians are like Aberdeen ,wish someone would lend me that amount,I would be as likely to pay it back as the rebels!
Aberdeen - I think you misunderstood the oil connexion - certainly as far as I am concerned.
It is clear that the whole thing in Libya started as it did in Tunisia, Egypt etc as dissatisfaction with an oppressive ruling government. However the conflict then harmed oil interests as you rightly point out.
The point for me about oil is that the UK has a vested interest in Libya's oil and so is prepared to take military action to influence the outcome of the conflict - as well I am sure as having some regard to humanitarian factors.
We do not intervene however in equally serious other conflicts and example of oppression where there is not an oil connexion
It is clear that the whole thing in Libya started as it did in Tunisia, Egypt etc as dissatisfaction with an oppressive ruling government. However the conflict then harmed oil interests as you rightly point out.
The point for me about oil is that the UK has a vested interest in Libya's oil and so is prepared to take military action to influence the outcome of the conflict - as well I am sure as having some regard to humanitarian factors.
We do not intervene however in equally serious other conflicts and example of oppression where there is not an oil connexion
If I stand aside and take the oilman view then the best course of action would have been to stand right back and allow gaddafi to put down the uprising. This would have sent a message to the middle east that intervention would not come to support the proletariat and we would sit very nicely in support of regimes in Saudi, Oman and Libya. Thats not what happened. Due to the fact that we were facing a massacre in benghazi, make no mistake the regime would have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands the west felt obliged to intervene. We havent intervened in Zimbabwe mainly because of our history and vested interests there which would point to a colonial motive which we couldnt refute. We havent intervened in palestine due to the zionist influences within the white house. we havent intervened in Yemen but if you go there you'll soon realise that this is a unique society where everybody is armed and there are no innocents, Bahrain well I'm not sure whats going on there. Afghanastan has nothing to do with oil, Iraq I believe was a deliberate war based on oil but the only one and just because Cheney did it once doesnt mean that subsequent administrations follow the same motives.
Interesting that we went to war a couple of days before the budget ,dont you think!!! When things arent good at home ,lets have a wat to whip up national fervour and support! oldest trick in the politicians book,that and cuddling babies!!
But no doubting that Sky news touchs a lot of people globally as the current bun does to the populace of the UK!!!
I see the rumours of sending in ground forces are growing ,recent History shows us that air power alone will not win a conflict!! You always need ground forces to do the dirty work!
Where I do agree with Aberdeen is the escalating cost to the UK and Libya will not be good for both countrys ,surely would have been cheaper to send in sas hit squads to take out gaddafi! Lets hope all the contracts the UK will gain from let us call New Libya will be worth it!! somehow I have my doubts!
Where I do agree with Aberdeen is the escalating cost to the UK and Libya will not be good for both countrys ,surely would have been cheaper to send in sas hit squads to take out gaddafi! Lets hope all the contracts the UK will gain from let us call New Libya will be worth it!! somehow I have my doubts!
Financially it will not work for UK, contractually it will not work for UK, loss of life it will not work for UK, yes we will end up sending in ground troops we're already seeing mission creep. In answer to your orignal question no. This should have been sorted within the arab world.
Co-ordinated and funded from the Arab league no doubt......... Will never happen ,be like trying to get a watford fan and a luton fan to hold hands and start a friendly alliance!
UAE donating 12 planes Turkey sending humanitarian aid ,even the Romanians have sent a frigate!!! Saudi are coming onside with aircraft and aid so some Arab nations are supporting the UN and Nato banner!!