West to use possible military action against Gaddafi

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361629/Libya-protests-David-Cameron-plans-fly-zone-threatens-send-British-troops.html

We'll use military force to free Libya, vows PM: Cameron plans no-fly zone over country and even threatens to send British troops


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/01/article-1361629-0D6A8D1F000005DC-362_638x436.jpg
Gaddafi and the supposed saint of freedom, Antony Blair (also Middle East Peace Envoy, doing a good job isn't he?)



David Cameron threatened Colonel Gaddafi with military action last night, promising a no-fly zone and arms shipments to his enemies. The Prime Minister even suggested he could send British troops into Libya as a peacekeeping force to stop Gaddafi’s henchmen massacring democracy campaigners. At a National Security Council meeting yesterday morning, he ordered military chiefs to draw up plans for the no-fly zone. If Gaddafi turned his air force on the rebels, RAF warplanes would be able to intervene.

Mr Cameron’s dramatic move, which may come to define his premiership, came on the day that papers revealed UK forces have trained Libyan troops in Britain and Gaddafi’s son Saif repeated his pledge that the regime would ‘fight to the last bullet’. In another hard-hitting move intended to force Gaddafi to step down, the Pentagon started moving warships in preparation to police a no-fly zone and world leaders imposed a raft of diplomatic and financial sanctions.

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Tony Blair was condemned for ‘dodgy dealing’ that led to the now infamous ‘deal in the desert’ with Gaddafi in 2004. Mr Cameron’s intervention was designed to pile the pressure on Gaddafi to quit – an outcome many had expected already. But, while the dictator has lost control of much of his country, he still remains in charge of Tripoli, the capital and home to a third of Libya’s people.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/01/article-1361629-0D6A8A6F000005DC-730_640x326.jpg


Tut tut it didn't take him long to turn into the heir to Blair, but then again we do need to bring freedom and democracy to the oil wells that are placed in Libya do we not? this is none of our business and the idea of us becoming involved is utterly ridiculous, our forces are already utterly overstretched fighting the pointless war in Afghanistan which will result in the same outcome as the British imperial mission there many many decades ago (100+ years) and the same result which met the Soviets; failure.

No 'no fly zones', no military action and lets keep our noses out of it. We haven't got the money, we haven't got the equipment and we haven't got the justification to police the world as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show. This comment made me laugh, and its spot on concerning the wests foreign policy in recent years;


Brilliant. So we sell arms to the bad guy and now we're going in against them. Where have I heard that before... oh yes, and i think we know how that went.

- Tim, Sydney, Ex UK

And as for anyone thinking this is a good course of action concerning Libya, when are you signing up then?

Thoughts?

[Niall!]

God dammit Cameron is all I can say.

[Marbian]

If he starts a war I'm going to egg his house this time.

[FlyingJesus]

I can't see what this has to do with us, at least with Afghanistan/Iraq they played up the fact that massive terrorist organisations were based there etc., but surely we can't claim the same necessity over the homeland of TWO terror suspects (Lockerbie bombings) so there really are no grounds for an intervention. Also I know it's the Guardian but still this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/libya-revolution-no-fly-zone) is quite interesting along with nearly all of the comments being in agreement with the sentiments published - namely, that a Western intervention would mean far heavier fighting from all angles and prolong what isn't suspected to be a particularly long seige on Tripoli as far as wars and revolutions go

[Marbian]

I wonder what David Cameron would do if Iraq came here with their millatry because of the teen protests going out of control.

[Moh]

lol, so hes cutting down the defense and then plans on war?

[Nemo]

Hopefully just a threat more than anything

[The Don]

I agree with this :S They are massacaring innocent people over there, and if we don't stop it, who will?

[Conservative,]

I think essentially most, or all of wars over the last century have been for the right reasons - or at least, what we were told.

World War 1 - to honour a treaty (with Belgium)
World War 2 - To dislodge an evil dictator and secure Europe
Afghanistan/Iraq - To dislodge an evil dictator and secure peace in the region, along with fighting terrorism.

This is along the same lines as the previous 2, and I don't really see what the fuss is about. We may not be Police of the world, but I firmly believe that if another nation requires our help to bring democracy and peace - we should help. Gadaffi is a deluded tyrant and should be removed asap. If we need to help, so be it. This won't be another Iraq or Afghanistan, the revolutionaries just need the extra man power and better equipment. If we do go on, we'd been in and out within a few months AT THE MOST.

It may not be our direct problem, but if we want a peaceful world, sometimes you have to go and help out in places it doesn't concern you.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think essentially most, or all of wars over the last century have been for the right reasons - or at least, what we were told.

World War 1 - to honour a treaty (with Belgium)
World War 2 - To dislodge an evil dictator and secure Europe
Afghanistan/Iraq - To dislodge an evil dictator and secure peace in the region, along with fighting terrorism.

This is along the same lines as the previous 2, and I don't really see what the fuss is about. We may not be Police of the world, but I firmly believe that if another nation requires our help to bring democracy and peace - we should help. Gadaffi is a deluded tyrant and should be removed asap. If we need to help, so be it. This won't be another Iraq or Afghanistan, the revolutionaries just need the extra man power and better equipment. If we do go on, we'd been in and out within a few months AT THE MOST.

It may not be our direct problem, but if we want a peaceful world, sometimes you have to go and help out in places it doesn't concern you.

So you'd be prepared to go and fight in Iraq/Afghanistan am I right?

A war is only worth it if you are willing to go yourself and in the knowledge that you may die in the process.

And also, in terms of getting rid of dictators - China next then boys? (oh no I forgot, China can defend itself and give us a smack in the face back!)


I agree with this :S They are massacaring innocent people over there, and if we don't stop it, who will?

Are you planning to sign up anytime soon?

I'm always amazed that the people wanting to go sorting the business of other countries are the ones who happen not to be in the armed forces themselves/have their lines put on the line - why should we police the world, thats one of the exact reasons why 9/11 occured in the first place because the United States has military bases all over the world to sustain its 'empire'.

But morals aside also on whether you think we should or shouldn't, face the fact; the west cannot afford it.

[Conservative,]

So you'd be prepared to go and fight in Iraq/Afghanistan am I right?

A war is only worth it if you are willing to go yourself and in the knowledge that you may die in the process.

And also, in terms of getting rid of dictators - China next then boys? (oh no I forgot, China can defend itself and give us a smack in the face back!)



Are you planning to sign up anytime soon?

I can't for health reasons, but if I could then if I was asked to - yes I would sign up. I wouldn't do it as a first-choice career but if I asked to for the national interest (if I could) I would fight.

And China isn't a dictatorship in which tonnes of innocent people are slaughtered, although I agree China isn't the best at these kind of things.

[FlyingJesus]

Isn't Big Daddy Gaddy the only reason Libya's not been an utter pile of toilet filler like so many other north African countries? Besides, he looks like Mufasa how can you not like him

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can't for health reasons, but if I could then if I was asked to - yes I would sign up. I wouldn't do it as a first-choice career but if I asked to for the national interest (if I could) I would fight.

(Medical reasons aside) you don't need to be asked in order to fight, just because you haven't been drafted doesn't mean you cannot just sign up if its such an issue to you. The usual response of 'if i'm asked I will' is a sidestep, because if you are called up you are not given the choice in the first place. Whenever you think of a war, think 'would I go myself' - if the answer is no, then the war isn't worth it and its a question our politicians 'the chickenhawks' need to ask themselves or ask if they feel their sons would be worth the sacrifice.

Strangely enough if they did ask that question, I don't think we'd be in Iraq/Afghanistan let alone contemplating Libya.


And China isn't a dictatorship in which tonnes of innocent people are slaughtered, although I agree China isn't the best at these kind of things.

China has an estimated one million people in political prisoner camps, if you want to worry about dictatorships - worry about China.


Isn't Big Daddy Gaddy the only reason Libya's not been an utter pile of toilet filler like so many other north African countries? Besides, he looks like Mufasa how can you not like him

Yeah, and we supported Big Daddy Gaffy just as we did with Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Robert Mugabe........ the list goes on and on. I mean, I personally think we should trade with everyone regardless and mind our own business, but the people who run the west preach democracy and freedom but not to their puppet dictators.

We then all wonder, why are we so hated?

[Conservative,]

(Medical reasons aside) you don't need to be asked in order to fight, just because you haven't been drafted doesn't mean you cannot just sign up if its such an issue to you. The usual response of 'if i'm asked I will' is a sidestep, because if you are called up you are not given the choice in the first place. Whenever you think of a war, think 'would I go myself' - if the answer is no, then the war isn't worth it and its a question our politicians 'the chickenhawks' need to ask themselves or ask if they feel their sons would be worth the sacrifice.

Strangely enough if they did ask that question, I don't think we'd be in Iraq/Afghanistan let alone contemplating Libya.



China has an estimated one million people in political prisoner camps, if you want to worry about dictatorships - worry about China.



Yeah, and we supported Big Daddy Gaffy just as we did with Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Robert Mugabe........ the list goes on and on. I mean, I personally think we should trade with everyone regardless and mind our own business, but the people who run the west preach democracy and freedom but not to their puppet dictators.

We then all wonder, why are we so hated?

At least China doesn't go round open firing on innocent civilians.

[-:Undertaker:-]

At least China doesn't go round open firing on innocent civilians.

Tiananmen Square? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)

Or what about Operation Shock and Awe which was used during the Iraq war?

[FlyingJesus]

At least China doesn't go round open firing on innocent civilians.

Have you not seen Mulan


oh yeah and Tiananmen Square I guess that was pretty harsh too

[Conservative,]

Oh yeah forgot about Tiannaman square :l

Oh well, I still believe that if we can, we should be bringing peace and democracy to everyone we can.

[FlyingJesus]

What because we do it so well lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yeah forgot about Tiannaman square :l

Oh well, I still believe that if we can, we should be bringing peace and democracy to everyone we can.

Indeed, and the best way we can do that is through non-interventionalism - by setting an example to the rest of the world and not supporting these dictators through foreign aid (which you yourself wanted to retain) and cheap arms deals in return for faked support on the 'war on terror'. We heard Gaddafi yesterday say how the west has betrayed him, and yes he is right. To support a regime for decades and then, when that regime is in trouble for us to invade it and claim 'oh yes, we want you to be free' is pure hypocrisy.

[Catzsy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361629/Libya-protests-David-Cameron-plans-fly-zone-threatens-send-British-troops.html

We'll use military force to free Libya, vows PM: Cameron plans no-fly zone over country and even threatens to send British troops


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/01/article-1361629-0D6A8D1F000005DC-362_638x436.jpg
Gaddafi and the supposed saint of freedom, Antony Blair (also Middle East Peace Envoy, doing a good job isn't he?)




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/01/article-1361629-0D6A8A6F000005DC-730_640x326.jpg


Tut tut it didn't take him long to turn into the heir to Blair, but then again we do need to bring freedom and democracy to the oil wells that are placed in Libya do we not? this is none of our business and the idea of us becoming involved is utterly ridiculous, our forces are already utterly overstretched fighting the pointless war in Afghanistan which will result in the same outcome as the British imperial mission there many many decades ago (100+ years) and the same result which met the Soviets; failure.

No 'no fly zones', no military action and lets keep our noses out of it. We haven't got the money, we haven't got the equipment and we haven't got the justification to police the world as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show. This comment made me laugh, and its spot on concerning the wests foreign policy in recent years;



And as for anyone thinking this is a good course of action concerning Libya, when are you signing up then?

Thoughts?



Totally wrong impression of Tony Blair again. He knew exactly who he was dealing with and was the only person that persuaded Gadaffi to give up his WMD and let the inspectors in. You going to criticise this too?. This guy has been in power under successive governments and I thought you were the last person to agree to invade a country purely for a 'regime' change. Tell me is Iran a better country since the Shar went or is it just the same oppressive one party state? It is worrying that they have been threatened with military action so soon.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Totally wrong impression of Tony Blair again. He knew exactly who he was dealing with and was the only person that persuaded Gadaffi to give up his WMD and let the inspectors in. You going to criticise this too?. This guy has been in power under successive governments and I thought you were the last person to agree to invade a country purely for a 'regime' change. Tell me is Iran a better country since the Shar went or is it just the same oppressive one party state? It is worrying that they have been threatened with military action so soon.

Antony Blair does not believe in freedom and democracy across the world hence his support for dictators such as Gaddafi (of which Peter Mandelson was also very close to his son). If he really did believe in democracy/freedom for the Arab world, he would not support the likes of Gaddafi and would order immediate military action/cut off all links with these people. But as usual, its only anti-western regimes which take a hit to the stomach because they won't do our bidding (such as have U.S. military bases on their soil). If you want to police the world and preach freedom/democracy then you cannot just target anti-western regimes. Why do you think we are so hated Rosie? because we are hypocrites.

I didn't agree with regime change and I still don't, i'm not arguing for us to invade Libya I am arguing against it. And as for Iran, like it or not the Iranian government does appear to be elected (also done by western polling organisations) see here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Polls_by_Weste rn_Organizations

I'd also add, if we do invade - I look forward to seeing you signing up.

[Conservative,]

Totally wrong impression of Tony Blair again. He knew exactly who he was dealing with and was the only person that persuaded Gadaffi to give up his WMD and let the inspectors in. You going to criticise this too?. This guy has been in power under successive governments and I thought you were the last person to agree to invade a country purely for a 'regime' change. Tell me is Iran a better country since the Shar went or is it just the same oppressive one party state? It is worrying that they have been threatened with military action so soon.

Blair = War criminal. No questions.

But until now Gadaffi has been fairly popular and as stated Libya has been prosperous. However if the people want him out, who are we to say no? It had nothing to do with Blair - the people were happy with Gadaffi, Blair has no part in this. But now the people are not, they want him out, and that seems to be for the best considering Gadaffi is so disillusioned, saying his people love him.

[AgnesIO]

Did you write the sentence below the picture? If so, lol at calling Tony Blair Antony. Just because no one ever, ever calls him by his whole name.

---

I think we should keep our noses out - I couldn't give two ***** if Libya is in trouble to be honest - why not sort out this country and give the military (more specifically the RAF) the money and equipment they need, before spending loads on something THAT DOES NOT AFFECT US.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Did you write the sentence below the picture? If so, lol at calling Tony Blair Antony. Just because no one ever, ever calls him by his whole name.

I refuse to call him by his PR-introduced name, remember 'Call me Tone' - no thanks Antony. I just find the man and his inner circle repulsive.


I think we should keep our noses out - I couldn't give two ***** if Libya is in trouble to be honest - why not sort out this country and give the military (more specifically the RAF) the money and equipment they need, before spending loads on something THAT DOES NOT AFFECT US.

Amen to that.

[FlyingJesus]

if the people want him out, who are we to say no?

Who are we to say anything :S it's not our country. People here didn't like Brown being in charge but we didn't expect the armed forces of other countries to come in and destroy the place


I refuse to call him by his PR-introduced name, remember 'Call me Tone' - no thanks Antony. I just find the man and his inner circle repulsive.

Was he ever referred to as Antony before his campaigns?

[Conservative,]

Who are we to say anything :S it's not our country. People here didn't like Brown being in charge but we didn't expect the armed forces of other countries to come in and destroy the place



Was he ever referred to as Antony before his campaigns?

A) As much I'd love to be able to say he was - he wasn't a dictator clinging on to power.
B) We didn't start a revolution to get him out.
C) If we did - the USA probably would've helped if big names called for it.

[Catzsy]

Antony Blair does not believe in freedom and democracy across the world hence his support for dictators such as Gaddafi (of which Peter Mandelson was also very close to his son). If he really did believe in democracy/freedom for the Arab world, he would not support the likes of Gaddafi and would order immediate military action/cut off all links with these people. But as usual, its only anti-western regimes which take a hit to the stomach because they won't do our bidding (such as have U.S. military bases on their soil). If you want to police the world and preach freedom/democracy then you cannot just target anti-western regimes. Why do you think we are so hated Rosie? because we are hypocrites.

I didn't agree with regime change and I still don't, i'm not arguing for us to invade Libya I am arguing against it. And as for Iran, like it or not the Iranian government does appear to be elected (also done by western polling organisations) see here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Polls_by_Weste rn_Organizations

I'd also add, if we do invade - I look forward to seeing you signing up.

If you feel that Iran is an democracy then so be it. I don't. It's people are totally oppressed Please also don't use silly arguments that if I agree with invasion I should sign up. That is just so crass and naive and comments like that belong in the playground. So are you saying that Tony Blair didn't persuade Gadaffi to give up WMD and let the inspectors in? As you say you find him 'repulsive' and don't give him credit for anything. Luckily lots of other people do.

[Stephen]

So you'd be prepared to go and fight in Iraq/Afghanistan am I right?

A war is only worth it if you are willing to go yourself and in the knowledge that you may die in the process.

And also, in terms of getting rid of dictators - China next then boys? (oh no I forgot, China can defend itself and give us a smack in the face back!)



Are you planning to sign up anytime soon?

I'm always amazed that the people wanting to go sorting the business of other countries are the ones who happen not to be in the armed forces themselves/have their lines put on the line - why should we police the world, thats one of the exact reasons why 9/11 occured in the first place because the United States has military bases all over the world to sustain its 'empire'.

But morals aside also on whether you think we should or shouldn't, face the fact; the west cannot afford it.

Robbieg is always prepared.. I just need to fit those turrets onto his wheelchair though

[Conservative,]

If you feel that Iran is an democracy then so be it. I don't. It's people are totally oppressed Please also don't use silly arguments that if I agree with invasion I should sign up. That is just so crass and naive and comments like that belong in the playground. So are you saying that Tony Blair didn't persuade Gadaffi to give up WMD and let the inspectors in? As you say you find him 'repulsive' and don't give him credit for anything. Luckily lots of other people do.

Tony Blair is repulsive. I was too young to remember him persuading Gadaffi to give up WMD or letting inspectors but doesn't change the fact Tony Blair is a war criminal and I don't trust anything him or his supporters say.

I agree with you on Iran though. But it IS democratically elected, it is still a total state of oppression and I think that their leader (his name has escaped my mind) should be removed from power. He is a lunatic. But it doesn't change the fact he is democratically elected and therefore he is actually legitimately there, unless it can be proven he used force to win the election, which I doubt it can be.


Robbieg is always prepared.. I just need to fit those turrets onto his wheelchair though

Lol Stephen :')

[GommeInc]

Yay, another war we pointlessly enter into! Aren't the Libyans dealing with already? The civilians tends to be taking over towns quicker than what any military action could do. The US and the UK should keep their greasy hands away from action that doesn't concern them.

[Technologic]

War, no. Enforced no-fly zone with the co-op of other countries, perhaps but it'll need careful planning.

[kuzkasate]

I dont understand why Britain always sticks their nose into other peoples business, much like America. Why dont they just let that country get on with it, the country is already dealing with it, surely you cant make the same mistake twice after what went on in Iraq/Afghanistan? Its just stupid and annoying, not only are they getting involved in something that doesnt affect them what so ever, but other countries will point the finger at Britain and laugh. There is no need to get involved, otherwise it will turn into America, sticking their noise in everybodies business.

I dont see other countries doing that, they may do it ever so often, but thats in very rare, extreme circumstances, Britain always does it. Why?

[Technologic]

I dont understand why Britain always sticks their nose into other peoples business, much like America. Why dont they just let that country get on with it, the country is already dealing with it, surely you cant make the same mistake twice after what went on in Iraq/Afghanistan? Its just stupid and annoying, not only are they getting involved in something that doesnt affect them what so ever, but other countries will point the finger at Britain and laugh. There is no need to get involved, otherwise it will turn into America, sticking their noise in everybodies business.

I dont see other countries doing that, they may do it ever so often, but thats in very rare, extreme circumstances, Britain always does it. Why?

A fair portion of our oil come from that region, keep that in mind

[kuzkasate]

A fair portion of our oil come from that region, keep that in mind

Yes, but then again there are other ways that you can tackle the oil problem aren't there? Plus, seeming as the country is already dealing with the problem, theres just no need to get involved.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you feel that Iran is an democracy then so be it. I don't. It's people are totally oppressed Please also don't use silly arguments that if I agree with invasion I should sign up. That is just so crass and naive and comments like that belong in the playground. So are you saying that Tony Blair didn't persuade Gadaffi to give up WMD and let the inspectors in? As you say you find him 'repulsive' and don't give him credit for anything. Luckily lots of other people do.

A war is only worth it if you yourself are prepared to go, the fact you are so shy to sign up to Afghanistan/would not sign up to serve in Libya shows to me that like our politicians, you expect other peoples children to die for your causes and your wars - I would sign up if there was a Falklans-type war tommorow to defend British territory from an aggressor and if I refrained from signing up I would know in my heart that I didn't really agree with the war.

I've just shown you poll results, if I said 'no I don't think Labour actually won that much of the vote' you would simply make me out to be mad. The polling shows that he won the election more or less fairly in Iran which is more than can be said for western supported regimes of Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Libya. The same goes for Hamas in Palestine - you may not like the regimes or their stances/political views, but like it or not these governments do appear elected. I simply don't know what to make out concerning Iran, as the words of Ahmadinejad have been twisted by the western world and its media (remember 'wipe Israel off the map'? - he never even said that, so I simply do not know who to believe and after the Blair claims of WMD in Iraq, what reason do I have for believing Blair over Ahmadinejad?).

As for Antony Blair, no I do not feel that paying the tyrant Gaddafi in terms of cheap arms/foreign aid in order to prevent him acquiring WMD is a 'heroic' stance at all. There is nothing nice or good that shines from Blair, he his a compulsive liar with the blood of many many people on his hands. His famed peace concerning Ireland was also a sham, he gave in to terrorists (as did Thatcher I will add) and now they run the government of Northern Ireland while Blair himself pranced around the world espousing the war on terror and how we will never give in to the terrorists.

What is so good about Blairs hypocrisy concerning foreign affairs? do you not understand that this is why we are so hated?

[Inseriousity.]

From what I've read, it sounds to me like they're doing well without our help, taking over cities. In fact, I read that they took out a plane? I also read that they fired on a rescue truck because they thought it was Gaffadi's supporters/hired mercenaries coming to attack them. In other words, it'd possibly be risking lives unneccessarily when they're doing fine on their own!

Despite that, in a business sense, they seem to be doing well so what if they win and turn on the West for standing by while Gaffadi ruled with his iron fist? We could end up with another Anti-west country and despite what you say about it having no benefits for Britain, I also read somewhere that oil prices have increased by 2% since the fighting broke out, which is surely a drain on the ordinary British citizen. It'd be more beneficial to help out and strike up a friendship and reap the benefits. Doesn't really sound like a friendship when you just take the benefits but... that's business I suppose.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sir John Major (former Prime Minister) now warning against possible mustard gas attacks by Gaddafi, in total agreement with the comment below;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8354345/Libya-Sir-John-Major-calls-for-military-intervention-after-mustard-gas-warning.html


jimdigritz (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/members/jimdigritz) - Today 01:50 PM

What's this I read?

Despotic mid-east dictator has WMDs and is willing to use them.

The US & UK feel obliged to enforce a regime change.

The country happens to have massive oil supplies.

All sounds very familiar...

In reality we aren't all that bothered about chemical attacks on innocent people (only when its our enemies/people who fall out of favour), because it wasn't that long ago that Israel used white phosphorus on the people of Gaza which is not to mention the Israeli WMD programme which it denies existing when we all know that it does thanks to photo evidence.

But shhh about that one!!!

[Robbie]

"We think we have the right to enforce democracy, when we're weakening ours every day; what hypocrisy!"

http://www.smartlyrics.com/Song687069-Enter-Shikari-Fanfare-For-The-Conscious-Man-lyrics.aspx

Enter Shikari! :D

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

[Fez]

If we do go on, we'd been in and out within a few months AT THE MOST.

That's what we said about World War One.
And Afghanistan.
And Iraq.

Just sayin', Libya is a powerful country because we decided it'd be fun to sell most of our arms to them.

[T@R]

Not sure why i'm telling you this, but it's always fun to laugh at yourself.
Usually I'm quite an up to date person, but today when someone said 'what should we do about Gaddafi' I replied, 'Sorry, I've never watched Lord of the Rings'
feel free to laugh ):

[Ajthedragon]

It's blatantly an empty threat.

[xxMATTGxx]

David Cameron's suggestion of establishing no-fly zone over Libya and arming rebels shot down by US and France.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/01/cameron-backtracks-libya-zone-us

[Jordy]

David Cameron's suggestion of establishing no-fly zone over Libya and arming rebels shot down by US and France.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/01/cameron-backtracks-libya-zone-usWhilst that's probably for the best... As discussed on Twitter it's a damn shame we no longer have a military capable of enforcing this by ourselves, we now have to rely on fairly unreliable allies due to our lack of an aircraft carrier. This is already becoming an issue despite only being scrapped a few months back, how on earth are we going to last 7 years till a new one is built. And even when it is built, we'll be sharing it with the trusty French. I should of been more vocal at the time but David Cameron's got it wrong here.

[The Don]

So you'd be prepared to go and fight in Iraq/Afghanistan am I right?

A war is only worth it if you are willing to go yourself and in the knowledge that you may die in the process.

And also, in terms of getting rid of dictators - China next then boys? (oh no I forgot, China can defend itself and give us a smack in the face back!)



Are you planning to sign up anytime soon?

I'm always amazed that the people wanting to go sorting the business of other countries are the ones who happen not to be in the armed forces themselves/have their lines put on the line - why should we police the world, thats one of the exact reasons why 9/11 occured in the first place because the United States has military bases all over the world to sustain its 'empire'.

But morals aside also on whether you think we should or shouldn't, face the fact; the west cannot afford it.

No, I'm not planning on signing up. People join the army knowing full well that they have to go into combat, So they should accept anything that comes their way.

I always find it mad how you ALWAYS have to win an argument on here, Were entitled to our opinions.

Why should I, Catzy or Robbie sign up to the army because we agree with this (I Don't fully know catzy's opinion on this btw). I'm sure all of us have higher asperations in life rather than signing up to the armed forces. People who do sign up for the armed forces fully know well what our goverments like, they are quite aware that they may have to fight, and are aware that they will have to go to other countries to fight.

I'm not so sure you would sign up to the army if there was a war for us to get out the EU. So don't bring daft and invalid points up in this debate. I thought we were bigger than the " my dads bigger than your dad" type of argument.

I beleive that, although it isn't anything to do with us, if we CAN help a country in need, then we should.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, I'm not planning on signing up. People join the army knowing full well that they have to go into combat, So they should accept anything that comes their way.

The whole point of the army and why people join, is the fact that you expect your government will not send you into harms way unless it is necessary. The situation in Libya however does not pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, it has nothing to do with us.

You do not risk the lives of others in combat unless it is needed, and this is not needed.


I always find it mad how you ALWAYS have to win an argument on here, Were entitled to our opinions.

Indeed, and the fact you wouldn't sign up shows me that your opinions aren't worth all that much concerning this.


Why should I, Catzy or Robbie sign up to the army because we agree with this (I Don't fully know catzy's opinion on this btw). I'm sure all of us have higher asperations in life rather than signing up to the armed forces. People who do sign up for the armed forces fully know well what our goverments like, they are quite aware that they may have to fight, and are aware that they will have to go to other countries to fight.

Robbie as far as I can make out isn't in support of this, infact he posted lyrics which sum up my positon also; we are fighting for 'democracy' overseas while back at home we are destroying our own democracy/set of ancient liberties.

Higher aspirations.. well that to me seems like you know how dangerous the army is, and that somehow these people are pawns in a game which you can send across the world to enforce your opinions. If you yourself are not prepared to go and fight then it is simply not worth it, do not expect the children of others to die for a pointless cause which has nothing to do with this country or its subjects.


I'm not so sure you would sign up to the army if there was a war for us to get out the EU. So don't bring daft and invalid points up in this debate. I thought we were bigger than the " my dads bigger than your dad" type of argument.

In the unlikely event that we ever had to go to civil war to declare our independence from a future European superstate (much like Libya at the moment trying to secure its freedom from the regime) I would fight and if I did not, that would suggest quite clearly that my words/opinions have been nothing but hollow nonsense.

I would fight for example in that kind of war/a Falklands type war which defends this country.


I beleive that, although it isn't anything to do with us, if we CAN help a country in need, then we should.

If you agree with policing the world, by all means - sign up.


"Naturally, the common people don't want war...but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a parliament, or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country"

--Nazi General Hermann Goering

Enough of playing on peoples fears and feeding them sob stories and enough of policing the world.

[The Don]

The whole point of the army and why people join, is the fact that you expect your government will not send you into harms way unless it is necessary. The situation in Libya however does not pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, it has nothing to do with us.


I'm sure, actually, I know, a lot of members of the army, enjoy going over to other countries, fighting. They know what our goverment is like, they know the risks of being signed up, they didn't have to sign up, they should accept whatever missions our goverments give them.



You do not risk the lives of others in combat unless it is needed, and this is not needed.

It is needed. Innocent people over there are getting killed for diplomacy.



Indeed, and the fact you wouldn't sign up shows me that your opinions aren't worth all that much concerning this.

You aren't willing to sign up, does that make your opinions worthless? no. So stop talking nonsense, you can have an opinion of a subject without having to participate.



Higher aspirations.. well that to me seems like you know how dangerous the army is, and that somehow these people are pawns in a game which you can send across the world to enforce your opinions. If you yourself are not prepared to go and fight then it is simply not worth it, do not expect the children of others to die for a pointless cause which has nothing to do with this country or its subjects.

Yes, I know how dangerous the army is, hence why I wouldn't sign up, people who do sign up are fully aware of the consequences and the dangers and accept these.
It is worth it, the people signed up ARE prepared to fight, otherwise they wouldn't sign up. That's their job.



In the unlikely event that we ever had to go to civil war to declare our independence from a future European superstate (much like Libya at the moment trying to secure its freedom from the regime) I would fight and if I did not, that would suggest quite clearly that my words/opinions have been nothing but hollow nonsense.


You think that because it's not happening in england, we shouldn't help, that's a terrible way to think. We should all want what's best for the world, rather than just our individual nations.
I'm pretty sure if you saw an old lady getting mugged you wouldn't help as it's "nothing to do with you".



If you agree with policing the world, by all means - sign up.


I agree with helping out countries in need, doesn't mean I'm going to sign up, sorry.
Much love.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm sure, actually, I know, a lot of members of the army, enjoy going over to other countries, fighting. They know what our goverment is like, they know the risks of being signed up, they didn't have to sign up, they should accept whatever missions our goverments give them.

Some will yes, until they have their legs blown off - if you want me to focus more on the financial aspect then I will, the financial aspect being 'why should the debt-ridden British taxpayer have to folk out for another war which does not concern us?' Just because you have an army with some wanting to fight does not mean you send it around the world willy nilly.


It is needed. Innocent people over there are getting killed for diplomacy.

You support going into China/North Korwa/Zimbabwe/Saudi Arabia + countless others then? the sort of places where people go missing overnight for simply expressing their views or being seen as a threat to the regime.


You aren't willing to sign up, does that make your opinions worthless? no. So stop talking nonsense, you can have an opinion of a subject without having to participate.

Um.. yes it does. It shows you don't really believe in it, hence why you refuse yourself to go.


Yes, I know how dangerous the army is, hence why I wouldn't sign up, people who do sign up are fully aware of the consequences and the dangers and accept these.
It is worth it, the people signed up ARE prepared to fight, otherwise they wouldn't sign up. That's their job.

They are prepared to fight (like every other army) but that does not mean you send them into harms way for the hell of it.


You think that because it's not happening in england, we shouldn't help, that's a terrible way to think. We should all want what's best for the world, rather than just our individual nations.
I'm pretty sure if you saw an old lady getting mugged you wouldn't help as it's "nothing to do with you".

So you'd support invading the likes of China, North Korea etc would you? what makes me laugh is that now the western political class has suddenly jumped on the democracy bandwagon you believe that we actually care about democracy in those countries when in reality we were the ones propping up Gaddafi for years and years.

Why should our people expect to die for a) the internal affairs of another country & b) a hypocritical foreign policy which has only been changed in order to make the west look good.


I agree with helping out countries in need, doesn't mean I'm going to sign up, sorry.
Much love.

But you don't believe in helping them via military means, hence why you would refuse to sign up if there was an intervention in Libya tommorow. 'I believe this this and this.. but its the job of others to enforce it for me while I sit back' - thus proving you don't really believe in it at all. A political example would be the 'eurosceptic' Tory Party, which says its eurosceptic/defender of sovereignty but often signs away our sovereignty.. well its not eurosceptic then, is it.

I would have thought we'd have learnt by now after Iraq and Afghanistan.

[The Don]

Some will yes, until they have their legs blown off - if you want me to focus more on the financial aspect then I will, the financial aspect being 'why should the debt-ridden British taxpayer have to folk out for another war which does not concern us?' Just because you have an army with some wanting to fight does not mean you send it around the world willy nilly.

So, because you've lost the argument based on the subject of troops willing to go in and fight, you've moved it to the finacial aspect. Ok.

You support going into China/North Korwa/Zimbabwe/Saudi Arabia + countless others then? the sort of places where people go missing overnight for simply expressing their views or being seen as a threat to the regime.

North korea are over there starving to death anyway. Also, aren't we aiding south korea against north korea?

Um.. yes it does. It shows you don't really believe in it, hence why you refuse yourself to go.

Again, I do beleive in it, otherwise I wouldn't see it. The army is not my chosen profession, hence why i'm not joining.

They are prepared to fight (like every other army) but that does not mean you send them into harms way for the hell of it.

It's not for the hell of it. And we were talking about establishing a no fly zone and arming the locals, that's not really in harms way?

So you'd support invading the likes of China, North Korea etc would you? what makes me laugh is that now the western political class has suddenly jumped on the democracy bandwagon you believe that we actually care about democracy in those countries when in reality we were the ones propping up Gaddafi for years and years.

I would suport that, yes, although I don't beleive we are capable of winning, so no, it would be a stupid move to go other there.

Why should our people expect to die for a) the internal affairs of another country & b) a hypocritical foreign policy which has only been changed in order to make the west look good.

A) is already happening in iraq
B) because the policy is correct?

But you don't believe in helping them via military means, hence why you would refuse to sign up if there was an intervention in Libya tommorow. 'I believe this this and this.. but its the job of others to enforce it for me while I sit back' - thus proving you don't really believe in it at all. A political example would be the 'eurosceptic' Tory Party, which says its eurosceptic/defender of sovereignty but often signs away our sovereignty.. well its not eurosceptic then, is it.

Again, I can beleive in something without having to take part. being in the army isn't my chosen profession. I'm sure bankers, graphics designers agree with politics, they don't join in though as they aren't trained in that and that's not their chosen profession. They can, however, have an opinion on it.

I would have thought we'd have learnt by now after Iraq and Afghanistan.

It appears not.
xox


(makes longer)

[Catzsy]

Dan when was the last time you went out and canvassed for UKIP/organised support and publicly demostrated/organised a demonstration against the european union. After all if you believe in it...........

[JerseySafety]

Good on him tbh.

[FlyingJesus]

I believe in a woman's right to abortion doesn't mean I go around shoving coathangers up people. Active support is not the only way to agree with something

[-:Undertaker:-]

Rather differing these examples, war is about sending the children of others to fight and die for a cause. If you yourself aren't willing to step upto the plate for that cause, then don't expect the children of others to do it for you. Do we really believe that, if all of our MPs had children in the armed forces back in 2003 we'd have invaded Iraq? We have had two quagmires created so far (Iraq and Afghanistan) and our soldiers have died for nothing.

Don't let it happen again.

[HotelUser]

You support going into China/North Korwa/Zimbabwe/Saudi Arabia + countless others then? the sort of places where people go missing overnight for simply expressing their views or being seen as a threat to the regime.

Well China not really, because we need to continue exploiting its people to enjoy the items of our every day life.

North Korea is pretty awful and doesn't really contribute anything to anyone and tends to screw over all its inhabitants. Instead of arbitrarily for some reason "going in" it would be much more fun just to kill their dear leader, though (best do that whilst he's looking at things (http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com/)).

As for the Libya situation I think the threat is just awesome and when there's a democratic Libya it will be even more awesome.

[Catzsy]

Rather differing these examples, war is about sending the children of others to fight and die for a cause. If you yourself aren't willing to step upto the plate for that cause, then don't expect the children of others to do it for you. Do we really believe that, if all of our MPs had children in the armed forces back in 2003 we'd have invaded Iraq? We have had two quagmires created so far (Iraq and Afghanistan) and our soldiers have died for nothing.

Don't let it happen again.

That is so niave. Just because somebody believes in a cause then it doesn't mean they have to sign up to fight the war. You believe in 'freedom of speech' but when somebody expresses a view that they support a war such as iraaq you then say 'oh you are entitled to your view as long as you sign up to the war'. Double standards? So those of you don't believe in a war then you should attend the anti war demonstrations? Nobody forces anybody to sign up to the armed forces - they do it voluntarily and no children are sent to war. What the heck are you on about?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is so niave. Just because somebody believes in a cause then it doesn't mean they have to sign up to fight the war. You believe in 'freedom of speech' but when somebody expresses a view that they support a war such as iraaq you then say 'oh you are entitled to your view as long as you sign up to the war'. Double standards? So those of you don't believe in a war then you should attend the anti war demonstrations? Nobody forces anybody to sign up to the armed forces - they do it voluntarily and no children are sent to war. What the heck are you on about?

I'm on about the fact that people such as yourself and Antony Blair are perfectly happy to send young guys and girls to wars around the world, based on lies/sexed up 'evidence' and a strange notion that somehow the hypocritical west has the right/moral superiority to get involved in almost every conflict hence making another pigs ear of the situation. If you yourself went and signed up then I think you would think twice as hard about your support for another fruitless foreign adventure which only ends up in soldiers coming back in body bags, increases on the national debt and thats not to mention the damage done by the likes of shock and awe policies on the people living there who are already living in poorly conditions as it is.

Do you really believe if our MPs back in 2003 had all had kids in the armed forces we'd be in Iraq? not a chance in hell would they have sent them.

If the west didn't support regimes such as Mubarak/Gaddafi/Hussein and so on.. then maybe you'd have a case. But as our whole and entire foreign policy is based upon backstabbbing, lies and hypocrisy - you only send up creating demons such as Al Qaeda which come back to haunt us.

[HotelUser]

@Dan, if they don't want to go to war they shouldn't join the army.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Dan, if they don't want to go to war they shouldn't join the army.

I expect this country to use its army when it needs to defend its territory against an aggressor (Falklands for example), not for the hell of it just because it can - especially when the causes and the whole basis of western foreign policy is based upon hypocrisy, backstabbing and lies.

You do not send armed forces into a warzone unless it is absolutely necessary.

[HotelUser]

The army fighting for the greater good of other people in the world isn't just using it for the hell of it. Even if you disagree with them going there that's extremely disrespectful.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The army fighting for the greater good of other people in the world isn't just using it for the hell of it. Even if you disagree with them going there that's extremely disrespectful.

Thats nonsense because we've been the ones supporting these regimes for decades, so the idea that we should suddenly intervene now for freedom and democracy when we've kept that exact ideal out of the hands of the people all these years is pure hypocrisy.

The only reason our leaders wish to go in now is in order to firstly secure oil fields and second to attempt to look like the heroes.

[HotelUser]

Thats nonsense because we've been the ones supporting these regimes for decades, so the idea that we should suddenly intervene now for freedom and democracy when we've kept that exact ideal out of the hands of the people all these years is pure hypocrisy.

The only reason our leaders wish to go in now is in order to firstly secure oil fields and second to attempt to look like the heroes.

The looking like heros part really makes it all worth it.

Shame you've completely neglected to mention the fact that you'd be helping those poor Libyans out, though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The looking like heros part really makes it all worth it.

Shame you've completely neglected to mention the fact that you'd be helping those poor Libyans out, though.

But we don't really mean to help them out because we are the ones who have been supporting their regimes for decades upon decades, the same goes for Mubarak and Ben Ali and Saudi Arabia. So to pretend that, now, because the Libyans are finally fighting for freedom against the regime we supported that somehow we are and have been on their side is nothing but bandwagon hypocrisy designed to save the west face. As I said before, have a genuine moral foreign policy in the first place and you may have an argument, but as it is it is nothing but backstabbing and deceit. These actions are what afterall fuel resentment in the Middle East against the western world, leading to events such as 9/11.

I have been probably the strongest critic of these regimes on this forum over many years, while the neocons and supporters of liberal interventionalism on here and in world affairs have been the ones supporting the U.S.-supported regimes of Ali, Mubarak and so forth - now that these regimes are collapsing, it simply will not do for you to all turn around and say "hey, thats what we wanted".

The Libyans started this revolution (a revolution western politicians did not want), let the Libyans finish it the way they want.

[The Don]

But we don't really mean to help them out because we are the ones who have been supporting their regimes for decades upon decades, the same goes for Mubarak and Ben Ali and Saudi Arabia. So to pretend that, now, because the Libyans are finally fighting for freedom against the regime we supported that somehow we are and have been on their side is nothing but bandwagon hypocrisy designed to save the west face. As I said before, have a genuine moral foreign policy in the first place and you may have an argument, but as it is it is nothing but backstabbing and deceit. These actions are what afterall fuel resentment in the Middle East against the western world, leading to events such as 9/11.

I have been probably the strongest critic of these regimes on this forum over many years, while the neocons and supporters of liberal interventionalism on here and in world affairs have been the ones supporting the U.S.-supported regimes of Ali, Mubarak and so forth - now that these regimes are collapsing, it simply will not do for you to all turn around and say "hey, thats what we wanted".

The Libyans started this revolution (a revolution western politicians did not want), let the Libyans finish it the way they want.

I think when they start spraying bullets into crowds of inncoent people who what freedom, that's when we should step in, and when has civil war nearly broke out over there before for us to have helped?

[GirlNextDoor15]

I think it's stupid for those who think that British and other Western countries are there to help them because of the stupid reason, world peace. It is so OBVIOUS that they are not there to help them because of world peace. What I mean is can't you see the impacts of the uprising in Libya? Not only some of protesters there died but even world petrol price increases drastically and that is why British and other Western countries like America are sticking their noses into other people's business. It is a good chance for them to interrupt other countries' affairs and then take charge of the whole country just like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. America took charge of the whole country just because they assumed Osama bin Laden was still in Iraq and Saadam Hussein had nuclear weapons in his country. What are the reasons? 'We want world peace', according to George W. Bush. Then, at the end what did they get? 9/11 tragedy because al-Qaeda hated America in interrupting their affairs. Same goes to here. British and other Western countries want to interrupt their affairs just because of world peace. But what I think is world peace to them is taking control of world economic and not letting the price of oil affecting their country. If British and other Western countries invade Libya with no other concrete support other than their weak military force, this will definitely end up like what happened in America. Before they start sending British troops to Libya, they should at least discuss their plans with other countries including ASEAN countries.

[AgnesIO]

I think it's stupid for those who think that British and other Western countries are there to help them because of the stupid reason, world peace. It is so OBVIOUS that they are not there to help them because of world peace. What I mean is can't you see the impacts of the uprising in Libya? Not only some of protesters there died but even world petrol price increases drastically and that is why British and other Western countries like America are sticking their noses into other people's business. It is a good chance for them to interrupt other countries' affairs and then take charge of the whole country just like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. America took charge of the whole country just because they assumed Osama bin Laden was still in Iraq and Saadam Hussein had nuclear weapons in his country. What are the reasons? 'We want world peace', according to George W. Bush. Then, at the end what did they get? 9/11 tragedy because al-Qaeda hated America in interrupting their affairs. Same goes to here. British and other Western countries want to interrupt their affairs just because of world peace. But what I think is world peace to them is taking control of world economic and not letting the price of oil affecting their country. If British and other Western countries invade Libya with no other concrete support other than their weak military force, this will definitely end up like what happened in America. Before they start sending British troops to Libya, they should at least discuss their plans with other countries including ASEAN countries.

To screw with your beliefs..

America invaded Iraq AFTER 9/11.

Also, it is Asian nor Asean.

[efq]

Um. I don't know what to say. Aren't we just managing to reduce the amount of british troops we have out now? It'll only end up with us losing troops to getting stuck there. I mean a warplane bombed a Libyan village the other day. Let someone near them fight it for them.

I know we are a good country, we like to help when we can but we've got to let some countries do something as well, we can't be depended upon at every crisis.

[ifuseekamy]

Um. I don't know what to say. Aren't we just managing to reduce the amount of british troops we have out now? It'll only end up with us losing troops to getting stuck there. I mean a warplane bombed a Libyan village the other day. Let someone near them fight it for them.

I know we are a good country, we like to help when we can but we've got to let some countries do something as well, we can't be depended upon at every crisis.
Yeah, when did Spain last absolve their post-imperialism guilt?

[efq]

Yeah, when did Spain last absolve their post-imperialism guilt?
I'm not clever enough to know if that was for or against me :p

[Jordy]

An SAS unit was being held by rebel forces in Libya last night after a secret mission to put British diplomats in touch with leading opponents of Muammar Gadaffi ended in humiliation.

The soldiers — up to eight men — were captured as they escorted a junior diplomat through rebel-held territory in the east of the country.This news isn't on other news outlets yet and I would link but The Sunday Times is behind a paywall so my extract will have to do.

This is incredibly embarrassing, it's the opposition who have taken them. Cameron's attempt to take lead of the situation and intervene with the opposition is now nothing more than a joke. The Dutch had a similar situation a few days ago and they've been criticised enormously, and now we have to end up medalling as well! The SAS who are considered some of the toughest troops in the world are now nothing more than a joke as well.

Government resignation perhaps..?

[xxMATTGxx]

The Ministry of Defence says it will not comment on a claim in the Sunday Times that members of the SAS have been seized by rebel forces in Libya.

The paper claims the unit was involved in a secret mission to put British diplomats in touch with rebels trying to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

It says eight SAS men, in plain clothes but armed, were captured as they escorted the diplomat in eastern Libya.

In a statement, the MoD said: "We do not comment on the special forces."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12658054


I guess we will never know if it's true they have been captured if they don't comment on the SAS.

[xxMATTGxx]

Sky sources: Eight special forces soldiers captured in Libya by rebels are likely to be released later today

[Catzsy]

I'm on about the fact that people such as yourself and Antony Blair are perfectly happy to send young guys and girls to wars around the world, based on lies/sexed up 'evidence' and a strange notion that somehow the hypocritical west has the right/moral superiority to get involved in almost every conflict hence making another pigs ear of the situation. If you yourself went and signed up then I think you would think twice as hard about your support for another fruitless foreign adventure which only ends up in soldiers coming back in body bags, increases on the national debt and thats not to mention the damage done by the likes of shock and awe policies on the people living there who are already living in poorly conditions as it is.

Do you really believe if our MPs back in 2003 had all had kids in the armed forces we'd be in Iraq? not a chance in hell would they have sent them.

If the west didn't support regimes such as Mubarak/Gaddafi/Hussein and so on.. then maybe you'd have a case. But as our whole and entire foreign policy is based upon backstabbbing, lies and hypocrisy - you only send up creating demons such as Al Qaeda which come back to haunt us.

Your reasoning is just plain bizarre. As David said - if people don't want to join the armed forces they don't have to. What did they expect? Just to play with tanks and guns and get paid for it? War happens and if you sign up it means that you are prepared to go to war. Al Qaeda don't need any encouragement to terrorise the whole world. I actually thought before you didn't see them as the threat. What happened to your theory on North Korea.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think when they start spraying bullets into crowds of inncoent people who what freedom, that's when we should step in, and when has civil war nearly broke out over there before for us to have helped?

But we don't care about freedom as our record shows, so that isn't a reason for going in.


Your reasoning is just plain bizarre. As David said - if people don't want to join the armed forces they don't have to. What did they expect? Just to play with tanks and guns and get paid for it? War happens and if you sign up it means that you are prepared to go to war. Al Qaeda don't need any encouragement to terrorise the whole world. I actually thought before you didn't see them as the threat. What happened to your theory on North Korea.

They join to defend their country, not to be sent into harms way for silly reasons or lies which you still insist was a basis for invading another country. I very much doubt a lot of soldiers in the German army joined expecting to be sent around invading fellow European countries but they were by their despot and many lost their lives for no reason at all. The army is also now often seen as the only viable job for the poorest who live in appalling, dead areas around this country and around the United States aswell. They (the majority i'd put my money on) certainly do not sign up with the mind "I want to police the world, I hope Mr Cameron sends us into Libya". I mean seriously, why do you think Ron Paul raised most money out of all candidates from serving soldiers back in the 2008 Presidential election?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUhEH7BTVJA


We don't care about freedom around the world so would yourself, David, Don and all the other pro-war supporters please please stop repeating this line because we are the ones who kept Gaddafi in power, Mubarak and Ben Ali. Also - Al Qaeda do not attack us because we are 'free' - they attack us because we have military bases on Arab soil and we are the ones who are keeping their corrupt brutal governments in power while we bomb people we have fallen out of favour with in the name of freedom. It is disgusting hypocrisy.

And until you grasp this simple notion we will continue to be attacked.

[xxMATTGxx]

Not quite sure how true this source is since it's a twitter account, although he says he's the "The Guardian's Iraq correspondent" but:


"Rebel leaders in benghazi confirm they're holding 8 britons who parachuted in 30km west 4 days ago. Won't be freed without contact from"

"The brits were carrying 'espionage and reconnaisance kit & multiple weapons & passports' a rebel boss says. Being treated as mercenaries ..."

http://twitter.com/#!/martinchulov/

[Catzsy]

But we don't care about freedom as our record shows, so that isn't a reason for going in.



They join to defend their country, not to be sent into harms way for silly reasons or lies which you still insist was a basis for invading another country. I very much doubt a lot of soldiers in the German army joined expecting to be sent around invading fellow European countries but they were by their despot and many lost their lives for no reason at all. The army is also now often seen as the only viable job for the poorest who live in appalling, dead areas around this country and around the United States aswell. They (the majority i'd put my money on) certainly do not sign up with the mind "I want to police the world, I hope Mr Cameron sends us into Libya". I mean seriously, why do you think Ron Paul raised most money out of all candidates from serving soldiers back in the 2008 Presidential election?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUhEH7BTVJA


We don't care about freedom around the world so would yourself, David, Don and all the other pro-war supporters please please stop repeating this line because we are the ones who kept Gaddafi in power, Mubarak and Ben Ali. Also - Al Qaeda do not attack us because we are 'free' - they attack us because we have military bases on Arab soil and we are the ones who are keeping their corrupt brutal governments in power while we bomb people we have fallen out of favour with in the name of freedom. It is disgusting hypocrisy.

And until you grasp this simple notion we will continue to be attacked.

Again just another rant treating us like imbeciles because we don't agree with you. None of us have said we are pro-war and we haven't said we should invade Libya. You are so obsessed with your hatred of Tony Blair that you keep bringing it up the past all the time. Nothing else matters to you. You have simplistic views that are fed by the right wing media such as 'if you agree with war you should sign up'. Nothing original that I haven't already read in the media.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No sorry Rosie, your views are fed by the naive idea that somehow that when people like Antony Blair, Obama and Cameron invade other countries saying "we want freedom" you simply believe them with no thought even put into it despite the fact that it is a fact that until these protests began we were the ones propping these people up. You've nothing worthwhile to say back, so you just attack with the usual, boring and petty "right wing nutter, media feeding your views" no Rosie, I look at the historical facts and the facts show that we are hated because we do this sort of thing, we are propping these people up. This is why we have terrorism, blinded ignorance causes it because you refuse to look at the bigger picture, relying instead on soundbytes from our politicians which is conveyed without criticism on mainstream news, such as on the BBC and Sky. Did we prop up Gaddafi, Hussein, Mubarak, Ben Ali etc yes/no? yes we did. So why now pretend we care about freedom?

Freedom isn't a case for going into these countries thus proven by our record, so come up with a better reason or simply give up. Then again, judging by that last reply it looks like you've already run out of ideas of why we should go in and have thus had to go on some rant about right wing media sources. It sounds much like a parrot repeating what its been told to say, catchphrases like "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" or "Al Qaeda attacks us because we are free" - the first one being false yet portrayed as true by the media and the second one being a simplistic, childish retort to a much more complicated and deeper issue.

I hear these catchphrases time and time again and yet when I present the facts to people such as yourself, you simply ignore them.

[Moh]

Your reasoning is just plain bizarre. As David said - if people don't want to join the armed forces they don't have to. What did they expect? Just to play with tanks and guns and get paid for it? War happens and if you sign up it means that you are prepared to go to war. Al Qaeda don't need any encouragement to terrorise the whole world. I actually thought before you didn't see them as the threat. What happened to your theory on North Korea.Did you know the army target low-level students, who most probably wont ever get a well payed job?

At my old school, there was a "bottom set" and the army used to visit them and give them talks and they used to go on "trips" to army training facilities. Strangely enough, the majority of this class joined the army.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are so obsessed with your hatred of Tony Blair that you keep bringing it up the past all the time.

This isn't solely about Blair or Bush, I am criticising the entirety of western foreign policy then and now.


Did you know the army target low-level students, who most probably wont ever get a well payed job?

At my old school, there was a "bottom set" and the army used to visit them and give them talks and they used to go on "trips" to army training facilities. Strangely enough, the majority of this class joined the army.

Thank you, its also shown on Michael Moores Farenheit 9/11 where he goes around with the army recruiters and they go to the poor mall as opposed to the middle class mall because they know these people have no prospects in the areas which they live, in the schools they go to. Its all rather sad and especially that our politicians take advantage of these people to assert their own hypocritical foreign policy.

But then I guess we've just been listening to solely right wing sources haven't we? (except that Michael Moore is left wing)

[alexxxxx]

i think ive used the argument against the armed forces before about how they target people with little prospects and people with little prospects instead of bettering themselves, go into the army as they have no choice (and aren't making an informed decision) yet i've been told i'm wrong before by Dan. Not sure why he's changed his tune now.

actually it might not have been dan, i think it was that guy who was obsessed with the army.

[Jordy]

I don't actually see what's wrong with the army doing that. It'd be a waste of resources for them to target the middle classes and intellects for the basic army. At least the army is offering them an opportunity where the education system has failed them, it gives them something worth while and reliable to do for at least 4 years instead of turning to crime or working in a supermarket.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't see anything wrong with it either, but to pretend that the people who make up the army want to go around the world fighting wars based on lies, hypocrisy and so forth is total nonsense. Of course some will want action although i'm sure its a very different story when they loose a leg or a friend. Thats why I went onto the financial part aswell though, even if we all were behind more armed action - we cannot afford it.


i think ive used the argument against the armed forces before about how they target people with little prospects and people with little prospects instead of bettering themselves, go into the army as they have no choice (and aren't making an informed decision) yet i've been told i'm wrong before by Dan. Not sure why he's changed his tune now.

actually it might not have been dan, i think it was that guy who was obsessed with the army.

I very much doubt it was me, as above anyway.

But i've changed stances before, no secret of that. :)