Lukers1 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Looks like its all over bar the shouting, rebels seem to be in control in Tripoli.. Good effort by NATO if true and the rebels, made up of averaqe men... I wonder if Tony Blair will go back and give Gaddaffi a hug like he did a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Flicking between SKY, BBC and Al-Jazeera news stations at the minute. Looks like Gadaffi over-estimated his popularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I imagine they will all be embracing liberal democracy, the rule of law and watching baseball in no time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Sky reporting they've got him but I remain to be convinced. I don't think many are expecting him to be taken alive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Point proven, clarification now it is his son and not him. Was wondering why no one else was reporting it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 We need to send Gazza in to negotiate the surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Point proven, clarification now it is his son and not him. Was wondering why no one else was reporting it! How many of the feckers has this guy sired? He seems to have dozens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 He understands what princes harry and phil realise and charles and william dont, the point of being in charge is to get loads of clunge and live it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Let's all celebrate another country falling into years of chaos due to unnecessary western intervention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Let's all celebrate another country falling into years of chaos due to unnecessary western intervention. In all fairness, Western assisted not dominated. I didn't really like the intervention but hey ho, its seemed to have worked. Its up to the people now to see what they can do, the question is, are they ready? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I suspect our assistance has been far more than publicly acknowledged. There's two things that bother me the most. First, we've not learnt a single thing from Iraq - removing Gadaffi is the end game, there is no plan to prevent the following years of chaos that we've all seen in Iraq. Second, the selective nature of our intervention. Why Libya and Iraq? If we go in there, why do we not go into Zimbabwe and Syria? Either we're a world police enforcing our "values" on everybody or we're not. Frankly, I'd far rather Britain just didn't get involved. It's not as if we still owe the US anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I suspect our assistance has been far more than publicly acknowledged. There's two things that bother me the most. First, we've not learnt a single thing from Iraq - removing Gadaffi is the end game, there is no plan to prevent the following years of chaos that we've all seen in Iraq. Second, the selective nature of our intervention. Why Libya and Iraq? If we go in there, why do we not go into Zimbabwe and Syria? Either we're a world police enforcing our "values" on everybody or we're not. Frankly, I'd far rather Britain just didn't get involved. It's not as if we still owe the US anything. If I was terribly cynical I might suggest oil reserves played a part in that. But that couldn't possibly be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Oh there's definitely an oil angle. Mind you, I'm not sure how Libya (and ultimately the whole of north Africa) falling into muslim extremist hands helps that cause. And there's plenty of oil in Syria too... But they've got a proper army, so that'd be "too difficult". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Assuming Gadaffi loses power but lives, does putting him on trial serve a worthwhile purpose? Perhaps ensuring his safe escape to Venezuala (or similar) would be a good thing. It might encourage the Syrian regime to walk away quietly if they can see an escape route. One to give thought to. While not condoning any of their actions, perhaps the ridiculous scenes of Mubarek on trial in Egypt shouldn't be the next step in Libya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Oh there's definitely an oil angle. Mind you, I'm not sure how Libya (and ultimately the whole of north Africa) falling into muslim extremist hands helps that cause. And there's plenty of oil in Syria too... But they've got a proper army, so that'd be "too difficult". We had control of the "pipe" out of Libya under Gadaffi (hence the Blair hug)... he threatened that when the kerfuffle started and we told him to knock it off... he carried on threatening it so the "UN went in to protect innocent civilians" and the first thing they did was to secure the "pipe" and hand it over to private security firms to protect whilst they got on with "protecting civilians"... it's a carbon copy of Iraq only us and the French benefit more than the US this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I suspect our assistance has been far more than publicly acknowledged. There's two things that bother me the most. First, we've not learnt a single thing from Iraq - removing Gadaffi is the end game, there is no plan to prevent the following years of chaos that we've all seen in Iraq. Second, the selective nature of our intervention. Why Libya and Iraq? If we go in there, why do we not go into Zimbabwe and Syria? Either we're a world police enforcing our "values" on everybody or we're not. Frankly, I'd far rather Britain just didn't get involved. It's not as if we still owe the US anything. Yes I didn't like Team GB getting involved really, especially with all the cuts. However, it's not Iraq... this morning Gaddafi's statue was pulled down in green sqaure, his son's arrested and Tripoli almost taken over.... by Lybians!!! Not a GI Jo or Captain Mainwaring in site. That kind of symbolism means something!!! Why not Syria and Zimbabwe. It would have made less sense to me to go into these two countries than Lybia and Iraq, and it doesn't seem like a good idea to open another two fronts and yes of course its about oil. Forget about the money aspect, Oil is the number one tool that a nation must have to engage in warfare, to attack and more importantly to defend itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 We had control of the "pipe" out of Libya under Gadaffi (hence the Blair hug)... he threatened that when the kerfuffle started and we told him to knock it off... he carried on threatening it so the "UN went in to protect innocent civilians" and the first thing they did was to secure the "pipe" and hand it over to private security firms to protect whilst they got on with "protecting civilians"... it's a carbon copy of Iraq only us and the French benefit more than the US this time. Again, apart from that huge occupying force taking over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Whoever is in charge will sell the oil for as much as they can get, and will need someone with the technology to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Yes I didn't like Team GB getting involved really, especially with all the cuts. However, it's not Iraq... this morning Gaddafi's statue was pulled down in green sqaure, his son's arrested and Tripoli almost taken over.... by Lybians!!! Not a GI Jo or Captain Mainwaring in site. That kind of symbolism means something!!! Why not Syria and Zimbabwe. It would have made less sense to me to go into these two countries than Lybia and Iraq, and it doesn't seem like a good idea to open another two fronts and yes of course its about oil. Forget about the money aspect, Oil is the number one tool that a nation must have to engage in warfare, to attack and more importantly to defend itself. Re: Syria. I saw an interview a few weeks ago on C4 news with someone from the FCO (pretty sure it wasn't WH or would have remembered that). Kristian Guru Murthy was asking the questions and he asked why there had been military action on Libya and not Syria. The answer was that action in Libya had great support from other nations, whilst Syria had a number of allies and they didn't want to do it without their support. Then KGM ended the interview for some reason, despite that being what I thought was a pretty big comment. Nothing more seemed to have been made of it. Rightly or wrongly then, it appeared the FCO wanted to do something similar in Syria, so to accuse them of hypocracy on that would seem rather unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 A classic, and clever, FCO response. The truth, but nothing like the whole truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 A classic, and clever, FCO response. The truth, but nothing like the whole truth. Which is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Re: Syria. I saw an interview a few weeks ago on C4 news with someone from the FCO (pretty sure it wasn't WH or would have remembered that). Kristian Guru Murthy was asking the questions and he asked why there had been military action on Libya and not Syria. The answer was that action in Libya had great support from other nations, whilst Syria had a number of allies and they didn't want to do it without their support. Then KGM ended the interview for some reason, despite that being what I thought was a pretty big comment. Nothing more seemed to have been made of it. Rightly or wrongly then, it appeared the FCO wanted to do something similar in Syria, so to accuse them of hypocracy on that would seem rather unfair. In case I wasn't being clear, I agree with this and it can be extended to Zimbabwe as any intervention there would probably have even less support. Edited August 22, 2011 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Which is? I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you... Actually I couldn't. Even if I knew. My personal view is that a fuller answer might have been, "We cannot consider military intervention because we wouldn't get UN approval from Russia and China, we're overstretched as it is, and Syria have a much larger army than anything we encountered in Iraq or Libya and would therefore represent a tougher adversary who would inevitably send home more body bags than the British public would be willing to stomach. And that's if Iran and Israel didn't join in." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Why would it be about oil ? Libya was already part of the international oil markets and had billions of pounds worth of deals with BP, ENI etc. I might be naive, but I prefer to believe that we (UK, France, US, some Arab nations etc)got involved to stop a massacre - one that was about to develop massively in Benghazi. It's pretty obvious why we're not getting involved in Syria (yet) - nobody has the stomach for WW3. Edited August 22, 2011 by Yard Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you... Actually I couldn't. Even if I knew. My personal view is that a fuller answer might have been, "We cannot consider military intervention because we wouldn't get UN approval from Russia and China, we're overstretched as it is, and Syria have a much larger army than anything we encountered in Iraq or Libya and would therefore represent a tougher adversary who would inevitably send home more body bags than the British public would be willing to stomach. And that's if Iran and Israel didn't join in." I'd agree with that - and is a pretty good reason for why Libya has been chosen and not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.