UK, France, and others preparing to attack Libya.

[StefanWolves]

The UK are leading the charge and have commited Typhoon and Tornado jets, Surveillance planes and also three Navy fridgets/destoyers to help enforce the no fly zone.

Other countries who are committing resources are France, Lebanon, Italy the US and also the Arab League.

Thoughts?

[Ajthedragon]

Do we need their oil that bad?

[:Markster:]

Mm... Well question is if this is good or not... This does stop Gaddafi from killing the Lybians in cold blood... On the other hand if the revolts fail and Gaddafi stays it's bad for the countries stated above as they will have to kiss some major ass... Good for the Lybians though so if all goes well democracy might even win :)

[StefanWolves]

Do we need their oil that bad?

Wow are you really that ignorant? Yea these countries may be 'interested' in the oil but the fact of the matter is that 100s if not 1000s are being killed because they are rebelling against this disgusting man and his disgusting regime.

The Libyan people want him out, most are to scared to speak out because the minority that do are being bombarded and murdered by Gadaffi's 'army'.

[Conservative,]

It's not "attacking" actually, because we are not going in there to claim their land. We're going in there to support democracy and get rid of a lunatic dictator.

I think it's good though. It's been backed by the UN and Arab League so nothing wrong with it imo.

[xxMATTGxx]

Last time I checked this was a no-fly zone at this moment in time and no ground troops would be sent in. I also believe their oil isn't even that good so forget that!

[Suspective]

I don't support war in any form, even if it is not through sending in ground reinforcements. I do not see how we can justify invading another country and destroying their air reinforcements when their is numerous cuts even in the defense sector. Yet that doesn't stop Clegg and Cameron as well as America and even France going in and effectively starting a war. Lets hope that this won't last long, as we really don't need another big war - Afghanistan has lasted long enough.

Its about time we butt out of other countries affairs, and leave it to those who are prepared (and can afford) to put their defense workers, security and budget at risk.

[jamiet]

I would like to thank the UN on behalf of the free world for the quick reaction to the innocent people being slaughtered in Libya and murdered for the crime of wanting to be free to speak their minds.
I would like to, but seeing as how its taken weeks to decide how many deaths you will see before you stop it i wont bother.

You are without doubt the most useless, worthless waste of time and money on the planet.
How can you sit there watching people die like this for weeks and then say "oh ok then well go in and stop him"?
And as for countries like Germany who are obviously willing to sit even longer. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Who is worse the ones who do it? or the ones who sit back and let them?

[StefanWolves]

I don't support war in any form, even if it is not through sending in ground reinforcements. I do not see how we can justify invading another country and destroying their air reinforcements when their is numerous cuts even in the defense sector. Yet that doesn't stop Clegg and Cameron as well as America and even France going in and effectively starting a war. Lets hope that this won't last long, as we really don't need another big war - Afghanistan has lasted long enough.

Its about time we butt out of other countries affairs, and leave it to those who are prepared (and can afford) to put their defense workers, security and budget at risk.

omg someone else who is absolutely 100% ignorant.

Not everything is about money, someone things are about morales, you know? even though its took far to long to get to this point its certainly better late than never and potentially 1000's of lives could be saved from this point thanks to this 'no fly' zone being upheld. In terms of money I don't see how its going to cost us all that much compared to Afghan (we shouldn't be their now anyway) etc, and this is by far a more worthy cause at this stage imho.

and btw someone who said its 'not attacking', it is, a 'NO FLY' zone would mean that Libyan airforce bases would need to be 'BOMBED', i.e. ATTACKED, if this didn't happen UK and French jets would be at a HUGE risk. Understand?

---------- Post added 19-03-2011 at 12:48 AM ----------

I agree. I actually respect Cameron a 100% more than I did a month ago. HE WAS THE FIRST to voice his disgust and was the person who made all this happen, even if he has had to drill it into our allies for the past 2-3 weeks.
I would like to thank the UN on behalf of the free world for the quick reaction to the innocent people being slaughtered in Libya and murdered for the crime of wanting to be free to speak their minds.
I would like to, but seeing as how its taken weeks to decide how many deaths you will see before you stop it i wont bother.

You are without doubt the most useless, worthless waste of time and money on the planet.
How can you sit there watching people die like this for weeks and then say "oh ok then well go in and stop him"?
And as for countries like Germany who are obviously willing to sit even longer. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Who is worse the ones who do it? or the ones who sit back and let them?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another pointless war which has nothing to do with morales, more so being a cover for the west which has been left exposed all of a sudden by the fact that we were the ones who have been keeping Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali in power and had continued to do so right upto the point when we thought they were close to being ousted - then we changed sides but the difference with Libya is that; we picked the wrong horse on the last race.


Meanwhile while we are on our 'moral crusade', we continue to support the Saudi Arabian regime which has just sent in a thousand+ troops into its neighbour Bahrain which is having troubles of its own, with the people wanting to overthrow the regime there or have consitutional reforms (did I mention we were and remain a key supporter of Bahrain, with the U.S. having military bases there?). The Ivory Coast is having troubles at the moment, yet no western intervention there nor in China which has put down every small protest with heavy hands and the list goes on and on.

The west will only ever attack regimes or governments which it knows it can beat via conventional warfare. Iraq under Saddam had little left of an army by 2003 and was a pushover, the same can be said for Gaddafi who never really had an army setup in the first place - Iran on the other hand (which the west does attempt to over-demonise) has a structured armed forces and would not go down without kicking and screaming. Iran also, does not kowtow to the United States and her allies hence why its such a thorn in the side of the United States and we must all be made to be fearful of Iran and this imaginary threat it poses. Because otherwise we'd look like, to put it simply, a gang of playground bullies - something which i'm afraid we are.

Time to close a vast majority of U.S. military bases of which it cannot afford (and yes the financial aspect is important, Great Britain has a debt of £7.9tn+ and the United States is over the $14tn mark) because before long America will find itself in the same position Britain found itself in during WW1/2 - overstretched, becoming involved in conflicts it did not need to become involved in. One medium sized war will finish the United States even if it 'wins' the war as Britain won WW2 but lost the most. Lets trade with people, be friends with people but not police the world.

For more on our hypocrisy in foreign affairs, this is just a small example concerning the current events in Libya;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBMLil4JbI

Then again maybe i'm totally wrong, maybe Gaddafi has some of those invisible WMD that Saddam had.

[Jordy]

Whilst I support the UN Resolution, and it was 'quick' by most standards it's still far too slow. The whole point of the 24/7 UNSC is so they can respond quickly, it's taken weeks and Gadaffi has continued to attack.

And the West have been taken for idiots, Gadaffi said there was a 'ceasefire' which delayed us putting in a no fly zone, so he is now taking Benghazi as a result. Why the **** did we believe this incompetent lier and why aren't we enforcing this UN Resolution we campaigned for so much?!

[dbgtz]

I think this is good and will be good in the long run, which is what they are aiming for because that area of the world is clearly unstable at the moment. However I'd rather they spent this cash on Japan who suffered a disaster which will take years to recover from rather then a man being big headed and some people being stupid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think this is good and will be good in the long run, which is what they are aiming for because that area of the world is clearly unstable at the moment. However I'd rather they spent this cash on Japan who suffered a disaster which will take years to recover from rather then a man being big headed and some people being stupid.

What cash? we haven't got any!

[xxMATTGxx]

French defence official says fighter jet has fired on Libyan military vehicle.

[Marbian]

I'll laugh if they hit us twice as hard with military weapons that we never knew they had.

[xxMATTGxx]

I'll laugh if they hit us twice as hard with military weapons that we never knew they had.

Then I will laugh when we (being the nations taking part) will just get them back even harder. Anyway:

French aircraft have destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south-west of Benghazi, Al-Jazeera television has reported.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Then I will laugh when we (being the nations taking part) will just get them back even harder. Anyway:

French aircraft have destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south-west of Benghazi, Al-Jazeera television has reported.

Really? afterall, it is the west which has declared war on Libya/Gaddafi and not Libya/Gaddafi who has declared war on us.

[xxMATTGxx]

Really? afterall, it is the west which has declared on Gaddafi and not Gaddafi who has declared war on us.

Really to which part, the top or the bottom bit about the four tanks?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Really to which part, the top or the bottom bit about the four tanks?

The top part, a no fly zone against the will of a sovereign country is an act of war in itself - bombing tanks goes without saying.

[xxMATTGxx]

The top part, a no fly zone against the will of a sovereign country is an act of war in itself - bombing tanks goes without saying.


I was saying that if they hit us back twice as hard with weapons we have never even know they had, then we won't just let them do that surely. We would attack back if that occurred? In regards of shooting the tanks, it was mentioned that they will attack any tanks/equipment/vehicles that were in control of Gaddafi forces who have not ceasefire and haven't moved out of the cities etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was saying that if they hit us back twice as hard with weapons we have never even know they had, then we won't just let them do that surely. We would attack back if that occurred? In regards of shooting the tanks, it was mentioned that they will attack any tanks that were in control of Gaddafi forces who have not ceasefire and haven't moved out of the cities etc.

My point is that, as we [the west] are the aggressors (and have declared war on Gaddafi, not the other way around) i'm certainly not in support of us 'hitting back harder' as you say because we shouldn't be there in the first place. We had no legit reason to declare war on Libya yet we've gone and done it purely for the reasons I mentioned in my post back on page one of this thread; to save face and of course, the oil is a big factor in this.

I'm afraid Gaddafi would now have legitimacy in attacking our forces, whereas we do not have the legitimacy in attacking his forces.

[xxMATTGxx]

My point is that, as we [the west] are the aggressors (and have declared war on Gaddafi, not the other way around) i'm certainly not in support of us 'hitting back harder' as you say because we shouldn't be there in the first place. We had no reason to declare war on Libya yet we've gone and done it purely for the reasons I mentioned in my post back on page one of this thread; to save face and of course, the oil is a big factor in this.

I'm afraid Gaddafi would now have legitimacy in attacking our forces, whereas we do not have the legitimacy in attacking his forces.

We are there giving the people air cover, regardless if you like it or not. We are not sending troops in and that is something the Libyan people do not want. They are glad they have a no fly zone and that fighter jets are now enforcing this and will shoot at Gaddafi forces if needed. To be honest the whole "oil reason" bores me and this country is rather crap for oil anyway. I'm glad that the no-fly zone is now actually being enforced, even if it was late in terms of any action being taken and now we have give the people on the ground cover and progress.

[Marbian]

We all know what Gaddafi is like anyway, and I think most people know he has the mind to actually have a war, if it's the case. We are only covering the public, we haven't gone in there and said, hey, Gaddafi get the **** out this country. They aren't forcing him out, they are just telling him to stop using force onto his own people, and all we will do is protect civilians, even if it's taking him out of power.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The funny part was that, the aggressors (ourselves) get a bloody nose not expecting it.


We are there giving the people air cover, regardless if you like it or not. We are not sending troops in and that is something the Libyan people do not want. They are glad they have a no fly zone and that fighter jets are now enforcing this and will shoot at Gaddafi forces if needed. To be honest the whole "oil reason" bores me and this country is rather crap for oil anyway. I'm glad that the no-fly zone is now actually being enforces, even if it was late in terms of any action being taken and now we have give the people on the ground cover and progress.

This is an act of war, that could easily end up in a Vietnam/Afghanistan type outcome. In Vietnam they sent in 'advisors' which ended up turning into a full scale conflict. The same can be said for Afghanistan, a mission that was stated to be to merely to go in and get Bin Laden has ended up with the west stuck in a quagmire and stirring up more hatred which only results in blowback for the west on our own soil.

Why will you war hawks not listen to the lessons of history!?

Finally, the oil part; Libya has vast reserves with vested western interests there not to mention the vast part of the country is unexplored for oil reserves. If oil really wasn't a reason for intervening as you make out, then why have we not taken action in the past in Burma, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and so on? The same goes for Saudi Arabia, if the House of Saud falls (which would be against the wishes of the west) there is no doubt the west would take action to secure oil interests there.

Interestingly enough (and ironically), Saudi Arabia is playing a part in this military adventure - you couldn't make it up even if you tried to.

[GommeInc]

I like all this text of "weapons we didn't even know they had." Isn't that the same as saying "weapons we didn't even know we gave them"? :P So is this going to come under the "War with the Middle East" or does this war have another name? I'm slightly sceptical we're going to be of any help or make a good example, the "loyal" supporters of Gaddafi may be serving him under fear for themselves. It'll probably just add to more innocent lives being killed.

Are we not breaking the no fly zone by attacking ground based units? I always assumed a no fly zone meant we stop aircraft and other flight based weaponry, not ground units like tanks. It just seems like we've purposely gone to war, and using the no fly zone excuse as a cover in which to base the attacks.

[StefanWolves]

Undertaker why do you always turn threads into arguments?

Not everything is about money, if the Government wanted or needed money dont you think theyd just print some?

This is about morales, Gadaffi is a pig and you seem to think that we shouldnt get involved when he is killing his own citiizens.

Stop being pig ignorant.

---------- Post added 19-03-2011 at 06:55 PM ----------

Whoever -repd me at least have the balls to leave your name.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Undertaker why do you always turn threads into arguments?

Not everything is about money, if the Government wanted or needed money dont you think theyd just print some?

This is about morales, Gadaffi is a pig and you seem to think that we shouldnt get involved when he is killing his own citiizens.

Stop being pig ignorant.

You are being ignorant to history and the facts, I must admit though there are plenty of examples I can give and its rather easy to get lost so I will list them in simple form and if you think i'm making it up or that I am wrong then you can reply to them in a constructive manner and we'll discuss it. Much better than silly dismissive insults don't you think?

Libya was a western supported regime until a few weeks ago.
The people rose up and the west then sided with the winning side (until Gaddafi reversed this).

Egypt was a western supported regime until a few weeks ago.
The people rose up and the west then sided with the winning side.

Tunisia was a western supported regime until a few weeks ago.
The people rose up and the west then sided with the winning side.

Bahrain is a western supported regime at present and is now in trouble.
Bahrain has called in Saudi forces to put down the people whilst the west continues to support Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia is a western supported regime at present and is now in trouble.
Saudi Arabia continues to act in a brutal manner (see Bahrain) yet is still supported by the west.

A no fly zone is an act of war and only results in the situation spiralling out of control.
See past examples of quarmire type wars; Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan.

The United States is in $14tn+ of debt and is on the brink of bankruptcy.
The U.S. government continues to spend what it does not have and cannot afford.

The United Kingdom is in £7.9tn+ of debt and is on the brink of bankruptcy.
The British government continues to spend what it does not have and cannot afford.

Burma is a repressive regime that is anti-western but does not have any oil.
The west does not take any action.

Zimbabwe is a repressive regime that is anti-western but does not have any oil.
The west does not take any action.

Saudi Arabia is a repressive, pro-western regime that supplies the west with oil.
The west does not take any action, infact it actively cuddles upto the Saudi regime.

Iraq was under the control of a repressive, anti-western regime but did have oil.
The west took action and occupied that country whilst securing oil deals.

Afghanistan was under the control of a repressive, anti-western regime but did have mineral assets.
The west took action and occupied the country whilst 'stumbling' across vast lithium reserves.

I mean, I could go on but we'd be here for some time but you can surely see the pattern which simply disproves that any of our action is based on morality and it is actually the case that our actions are based on oil interests/logistical interests. So instead of calling me ignorant (which you'll find I am not, you are) please checkup on the facts, hypocrisy and history of modern western foreign policy and get back to me.

[xxMATTGxx]

I like all this text of "weapons we didn't even know they had." Isn't that the same as saying "weapons we didn't even know we gave them"? :P So is this going to come under the "War with the Middle East" or does this war have another name? I'm slightly sceptical we're going to be of any help or make a good example, the "loyal" supporters of Gaddafi may be serving him under fear for themselves. It'll probably just add to more innocent lives being killed.

Are we not breaking the no fly zone by attacking ground based units? I always assumed a no fly zone meant we stop aircraft and other flight based weaponry, not ground units like tanks. It just seems like we've purposely gone to war, and using the no fly zone excuse as a cover in which to base the attacks.

The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

[GommeInc]

The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.
Would it not be easier to just go straight to Gaddafi? As far as I have read, the allied forces are just going gun crazy in places that will just add more tension. I would of thought the better option would be to line up an assault against wherever Gaddafi is and force him to surrender, that way his loyal followers may back down. It seems pointless just bombarding areas where he doesn't appear to be, when the war is with him and not his troops.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

Or in other words;

'America and her friends which kowtow to her line all agreed to take down the regime which they had supported and armed for decades upto the point when the Libyan people became fed up and it looked as though Gaddafi was toast. The west then switched sides in order to save face but Gaddafi made a last minute comeback and the west didn't want to face the choice between loss of its interests in Libya or having the spotlight put on its dirty deals with Gaddafi.

Meanwhile China and Russia abstained because it is none of their concern, and had they had voted against the resolution they would have faced demonisation by the west for being 'supporters of the regime' - which is what the west itself had done for decades prior to the Libyan uprising.'


where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

He's been doing that ever since he put himself into office 40 odd years ago, during the time when we were keen supporters of his regime along with supplying him with arms. Besides, isnt that what U.S.-supported Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are doing to their subjects right now as we speak?

[xxMATTGxx]

Reports are coming in that the U.S Navy have fired Tomahawk missiles at Libyan air defences.

[xxMATTGxx]

Pentagon Official: Over 110 Tomahawk missiles from U.S., British ships and submarines struck Libyan targets.

The Ministy of Defence announces that a British submarine has fired a number of Tomahawk missiles at Libyan air defence targets.

[Marbian]

Undertaker why do you always turn threads into arguments?

Not everything is about money, if the Government wanted or needed money dont you think theyd just print some?

This is about morales, Gadaffi is a pig and you seem to think that we shouldnt get involved when he is killing his own citiizens.

Stop being pig ignorant.

---------- Post added 19-03-2011 at 06:55 PM ----------

Whoever -repd me at least have the balls to leave your name.

I just want to say to this person, well done. You have saved the world, with all the poor, with all the VAT rises, etc... What a great idea.. that no one has ever thought of.. they can print new money! Wow, you'll be famous tomorrow.

anyway, last time I was reading this thread, it wasn't so bad... has anyone checked the news in the last 30 minutes?... **** me LOL.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't wish to swamp the thread, but this is a really good piece by Peter Hitchens just published;

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Why can't we just let the Libyans fight it out (...then make friends with the winners)


Politics seems to have become a sort of mental illness. We have no bloody business in Libya, and no idea what we hope to achieve there. We are daily told that we have no money to spare. We have just scrapped a large part of our Navy. Our Army is stuck in an Afghan war whose point nobody can explain. And now we have set out on a course that could drag us into a long, gory brawl in North Africa.


http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef014e86d4b798970d-500wi



And yet, when the Prime Minister announces this folly he is praised. Why? Partly it is because we all watch too much TV. Its reports simplify, then exaggerate. Reporters, much like politicians, like to feel they are helping to make history, and get excited by subjects they knew nothing about until last Wednesday.

Before we know where we are, we are taking sides in quarrels we don’t understand. Who are the Libyan rebels? What do they want? Why do we love them so? I’ve no idea, and nor has Mr Cameron, as we discovered when he (yes, it was him, not poor William Hague) sent the SAS to see them and they were welcomed with pitchforks and mockery.

The only sensible policy in Libya is to wait and see who wins, and then make friends with them. If you think this heartless, you are of course right. Foreign policy is heartless. Nice countries end up being conquered or going bankrupt. But it may be no more heartless than our kindly interference. I pray that this episode ends quickly and cleanly. Perhaps it will. But we cannot know. What if our humanitarian bombs and missiles accidentally kill women and children (which is almost certain)? What if air attacks and distant shelling fail to stop Gaddafi’s forces? Will we then send in troops? Who knows? I don’t. The Prime Minister doesn’t.

Some of the longest wars in history started with small-scale intervention, for a purpose that looked good and achievable, and ended up ruining millions of lives. The Soviet takeover of Afghanistan in 1979 ended with countless innocents driven into refugee camps, and the collapse of the Soviet state itself. It also left Afghanistan as a worse snake pit than before.

Why are we suddenly so worried about Muammar Gaddafi? It’s fashionable just now to get very hoity-toity about him. But until recently many of the war enthusiasts were rather keen on him, for supposedly heeding the fate of Saddam and changing his behaviour. Liberal idealists might also consider that Gad¬dafi is one of the heroes of their hero Nelson Mandela (there is film on YouTube of a touching embrace between these two).

There’s no principle at stake here, or we would be bombing Bahrain too, and demanding the withdrawal of the Saudi troops who arrived there in such sinister fashion last Monday. But Bahrain’s the base of the U.S. 5th Fleet, so we won’t be doing that. And as I’ve said here before, this supposed objection to rulers killing their own people is not consistent. Sometimes – as in China, Bahrain and Syria – we’re happy to let them do it.

So why are we rattling the drums of war and fuelling up for a fight in a place where our national interests would be best served by staying out? If the Arab League members want to intervene, they’ve got plenty of weapons not currently being used to attack Israel. I can only conclude that our Government is historically ignorant, politically dim, immune to good advice and swollen with personal vanity.

[The Don]

Another pointless war which has nothing to do with morales, more so being a cover for the west which has been left exposed all of a sudden by the fact that we were the ones who have been keeping Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali in power and had continued to do so right upto the point when we thought they were close to being ousted - then we changed sides but the difference with Libya is that; we picked the wrong horse on the last race.


Meanwhile while we are on our 'moral crusade', we continue to support the Saudi Arabian regime which has just sent in a thousand+ troops into its neighbour Bahrain which is having troubles of its own, with the people wanting to overthrow the regime there or have consitutional reforms (did I mention we were and remain a key supporter of Bahrain, with the U.S. having military bases there?). The Ivory Coast is having troubles at the moment, yet no western intervention there nor in China which has put down every small protest with heavy hands and the list goes on and on.

The west will only ever attack regimes or governments which it knows it can beat via conventional warfare. Iraq under Saddam had little left of an army by 2003 and was a pushover, the same can be said for Gaddafi who never really had an army setup in the first place - Iran on the other hand (which the west does attempt to over-demonise) has a structured armed forces and would not go down without kicking and screaming. Iran also, does not kowtow to the United States and her allies hence why its such a thorn in the side of the United States and we must all be made to be fearful of Iran and this imaginary threat it poses. Because otherwise we'd look like, to put it simply, a gang of playground bullies - something which i'm afraid we are.

Time to close a vast majority of U.S. military bases of which it cannot afford (and yes the financial aspect is important, Great Britain has a debt of £7.9tn+ and the United States is over the $14tn mark) because before long America will find itself in the same position Britain found itself in during WW1/2 - overstretched, becoming involved in conflicts it did not need to become involved in. One medium sized war will finish the United States even if it 'wins' the war as Britain won WW2 but lost the most. Lets trade with people, be friends with people but not police the world.

For more on our hypocrisy in foreign affairs, this is just a small example concerning the current events in Libya;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBMLil4JbI

Then again maybe i'm totally wrong, maybe Gaddafi has some of those invisible WMD that Saddam had.

Do you think it's right what Gaddafi is doing to libya's people? Don't change the subject or avoid answering the question, just answer with yes or no.

[Agnostic Bear]

Aww hell yes, I live for military action and democracy. Go western powers!

[xxMATTGxx]

I don't wish to swamp the thread, but this is a really good piece by Peter Hitchens just published;

You don't wish to but you do anyway, woot.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you think it's right what Gaddafi is doing to libya's people? Don't change the subject or avoid answering the question, just answer with yes or no.

No of course its not right - I was well aware and have been well aware of the nastiness of the Gaddafi regime for a long period now, whereas most people in support of this war have probably only heard of him in the past few weeks. But anyway here's a question for you; do you think what Bahrain, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have done/are doing to their subjects and citizens is right? I very much doubt you do, so whats the point you are trying to make?


You don't wish to but you do anyway, woot.

You mean like you do by posting news updates in one thread similar to the way a bot does, with no opinion given and when your opinion is challenged you simply ignore it and keep on posting more updates? Pot kettle black springs to mind. If you are in fully support of this war and believe it to be right, you should be able to reply to me and others and prove us wrong, I await a proper reply rather than sly little digs like the one you've just posted.

Anybody want to justify the wests stance on foreign affairs before we end up with more of our girls and boys returning in body bags?

[xxMATTGxx]

No of course its not right - I was well aware and have been well aware of the nastiness of the Gaddafi regime for a long period now, whereas most people in support of this war have probably only heard of him in the past few weeks. But anyway here's a question for you; do you think what Bahrain, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have done/are doing to their subjects and citizens is right? I very much doubt you do, so whats the point you are trying to make?



You mean like you do by posting news updates in one thread similar to the way a bot does, with no opinion given and when your opinion is challenged you simply ignore it and keep on posting more updates? Pot kettle black springs to mind. If you are in fully support of this war and believe it to be right, you should be able to reply to me and others and prove us wrong, I await a proper reply rather than sly little digs like the one you've just posted.

Well I post updates but I don't say "I don't wish to do this", like you did. I ignore you because I can't be bothered to waste my time replying back to your long posts, I hardly read your long posts from top to bottom either way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I post updates but I don't say "I don't wish to do this", like you did. I ignore you because I can't be bothered to waste my time replying back to your long posts, I hardly read your long posts from top to bottom either way.

My post was only a few lines to you, yet no reply - but lots of BOT posting from you via news sources. Seemingly, you can be bothered to look clever by posting little digs back... so you can be bothered, just I don't think you want to mainly because nobody so far has been able to justify western foreign policy.

Maybe Don will reply, we'll see.

[StefanWolves]

Ugh just shut up.
No of course its not right - I was well aware and have been well aware of the nastiness of the Gaddafi regime for a long period now, whereas most people in support of this war have probably only heard of him in the past few weeks. But anyway here's a question for you; do you think what Bahrain, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have done/are doing to their subjects and citizens is right? I very much doubt you do, so whats the point you are trying to make?



You mean like you do by posting news updates in one thread similar to the way a bot does, with no opinion given and when your opinion is challenged you simply ignore it and keep on posting more updates? Pot kettle black springs to mind. If you are in fully support of this war and believe it to be right, you should be able to reply to me and others and prove us wrong, I await a proper reply rather than sly little digs like the one you've just posted.

Anybody want to justify the wests stance on foreign affairs before we end up with more of our girls and boys returning in body bags?

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless and rude posts!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ugh just shut up.

Thats the response you can muster? at the start of this thread you were only too keen on lecturing other people, arguing in favour of this war and throwing insults around at those who disagreed with you. As the saying goes; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. :P

You called Ayd and MrJordan ignorant.. I think you have shown that in your own behaviour to be false, perhaps an apology to them is needed?

[The Don]

No of course its not right - I was well aware and have been well aware of the nastiness of the Gaddafi regime for a long period now
If you agree that it's wrong what he is doing, Why do you oppose so much what we are doing?

whereas most people in support of this war have probably only heard of him in the past few weeks. But anyway here's a question for you; do you think what Bahrain, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have done/are doing to their subjects and citizens is right?
No, I don't think it's right what they are doing. But, it isn't as bad over there as it has been for libya when we decided to get involved. We let it happen for a while, and then it got to the stage where it's at the brink of civil war over there. Then we get involved.

You may think that we are only in it for the oil, but I would like to think that not everything is a conspiracy theory. We didn't do anything at first, when the situation was similar to Bahrain, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia, but when an Evil dictator starts using his air force, slaughtering innocent people, and the people working for him are no doubt being forced to.

I think that if Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz (Saudi Arabia's King) Started firing into crowds of protestors and started slaughtering them, then yes, I think we probably would get involved in it, and rightly so.

I very much doubt you do, so whats the point you are trying to make?

It's not as bad, although it is still wrong what is happening over there, but I'm quite sure when any country starts shooting at it's people when they protest for freedom, Somebody should get involved and help.


My replies are in red.

[kuzkasate]

Do you people seriously not know what Gadaffi is like? You think he will just let America, France & UK attack them? Gadaffi himself said that he treats what the UK, France & America did as an act of terrorism. You know what Gadaffi is like and I would not be surprised if he carried out terrorist acts here in the UK.

What is the point in this whole thing? Civilians are still getting killed, only this time not by Gadaffi, but by Ameirca, France and the UK. Here I quote from BBC News "48 civilians have been killed and more than 100 wounded." These people are being killed by America, UK and France. So what is the point?

But why is the US backing force in Libya but not in Yemen or Bahrain where DOZENS have been slaughtered? After all, all three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests. I'll tell you why, because the Arabs are behind it, everybody knows that and quite frankly, the Arabs are licking America's ass, therefore America and the rest of America's ass lickers, close their eyes.

Its pathetic. America only ever attack the weak countries and have trouble handling them, I'd love to see them attack a strong and powerful country.

[Marbian]

Do you people seriously not know what Gadaffi is like? You think he will just let America, France & UK attack them? Gadaffi himself said that he treats what the UK, France & America did as an act of terrorism. You know what Gadaffi is like and I would not be surprised if he carried out terrorist acts here in the UK.

What is the point in this whole thing? Civilians are still getting killed, only this time not by Gadaffi, but by Ameirca, France and the UK. Here I quote from BBC News "48 civilians have been killed and more than 100 wounded." These people are being killed by America, UK and France. So what is the point?

But why is the US backing force in Libya but not in Yemen or Bahrain where DOZENS have been slaughtered? After all, all three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests. I'll tell you why, because the Arabs are behind it, everybody knows that and quite frankly, the Arabs are licking America's ass, therefore America and the rest of America's ass lickers, close their eyes.

Its pathetic. America only ever attack the weak countries and have trouble handling them, I'd love to see them attack a strong and powerful country.

I totally agree. But there is always one thing we all forget... Gaddafi is just like Obama, David Cameron, etc.. What would Obama do if his people went against him, with weapons? Only because we're not Libya, and nothing to do with them... Doesn't mean he is actually a bad person. Our government have killed people, only because it's OUR GOVERNMENT doesn't make us better people...

He now will see us as a threat, not a friend, because we're basically helping the people throw him out. Which quite frankly, is kind of fair. What would we do, if they came here with there army when the big protest was goin on in London saying they will take over the police force because how they use violents on us, and them and there country didnt like it... would david cameron allow them? surely not.

and i know gaddafi is killing people, but what can he do when thugs are using weaponery? let them... yet again, surely not. and im sure if people in england came out with weapons, they'll get the army on the streets too.

[jamiet]

What is the point in this whole thing? Civilians are still getting killed, only this time not by Gadaffi, but by Ameirca, France and the UK. Here I quote from BBC News "48 civilians have been killed and more than 100 wounded." These people are being killed by America, UK and France. So what is the point?

That's completely unconfirmed, that's what libyan state TV are saying you can't believe a word they say.


"There are no independent confirmation of the deaths and UK Finance Minister George Osborne told the BBC that such claims should be treated with caution as the military was striving to avoid civilian casualties."

"Adm Mullen also said he had not received any reports of civilian deaths or injuries."

Source BBC

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you agree that it's wrong what he is doing, Why do you oppose so much what we are doing?

Because of the following reasons;


We are going in for oil and influence, not for democracy or human rights (see examples of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).
We have supported Gaddafi for over a decade upto this point, I am now being told by our politicians that we need to go in to help free the Libyan people when they have been the ones supporting him for 10 years+.
I do not think the western world has a right anymore to police the world, and only leads to blowback on our own soil.
We do not have the financial power anymore to act even if we wanted to, the western world is bankrupt and cannot afford this action.
I do not think British men and women should die when this country has not been threatened.
I do not like first hand aggression, had Gaddafi declared war on the west then that would be a different story.


No, I don't think it's right what they are doing. But, it isn't as bad over there as it has been for libya when we decided to get involved. We let it happen for a while, and then it got to the stage where it's at the brink of civil war over there. Then we get involved.

The regimes are just as brutal as one another, Saudi Arabia has sent in troops to Bahrain (basically an invasion in all but name) in order to shoot innocents alongside the Bahrain armed forces. The exact same is happening right now in the Ivory Coast, Yemen and Oman - where are their no fly zones?


You may think that we are only in it for the oil, but I would like to think that not everything is a conspiracy theory. We didn't do anything at first, when the situation was similar to Bahrain, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia, but when an Evil dictator starts using his air force, slaughtering innocent people, and the people working for him are no doubt being forced to.

The exact same has happened, is happening in those countries you listed. Why is it that the west only attacks and acts in the name of democracy (not forgetting that we had previously supported these dictators) when the country involved just happens to have vast mineral reserves, oil reserves and has no real structured armed forces.

Like the playground bully, we'll only pick off the weak guys who have the sweets we want.


I think that if Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz (Saudi Arabia's King) Started firing into crowds of protestors and started slaughtering them, then yes, I think we probably would get involved in it, and rightly so.

Thats what his troops are doing right now in Bahrain, backing up the Bahrain armed forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/bahrain/8388082/Bahrain-police-carry-out-drive-by-shooting.html


It's not as bad, although it is still wrong what is happening over there, but I'm quite sure when any country starts shooting at it's people when they protest for freedom, Somebody should get involved and help.

So where is the west when needed in Tibet, China, Burma, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain.. to cite recent examples. The idea that we are going in to help the people is ludricious, you are being fed complete nonsense by a group of politicians who had supported Gaddafi and his brutal regime upto only a few weeks ago.

What makes it even more warped is the fact that i'm giving you and others the ongoing example of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, yet its just being dismissed as though something we do not want to hear. This happens all the time, we get into bed with a brutal dictator (Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Mubarak, Ali, Gaddafi) and then when we are shown up for what we are, hypocrites, the same politicians come to the rescue as though they are shining knights of horseback.

45 minutes before Saddam launches his WMD at London/Gulf of Tonkin incident.. we've heard it all before, stop believing this nonsense.


That's completely unconfirmed, that's what libyan state TV are saying you can't believe a word they say.

"There are no independent confirmation of the deaths and UK Finance Minister George Osborne told the BBC that such claims should be treated with caution as the military was striving to avoid civilian casualties."

"Adm Mullen also said he had not received any reports of civilian deaths or injuries."

Source BBC

Like western media? they are at it aswell, here it is from the horses mouth (you wouldn't see this on BBC or Sky);


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4

[kuzkasate]

That's completely unconfirmed, that's what libyan state TV are saying you can't believe a word they say.


"There are no independent confirmation of the deaths and UK Finance Minister George Osborne told the BBC that such claims should be treated with caution as the military was striving to avoid civilian casualties."

"Adm Mullen also said he had not received any reports of civilian deaths or injuries."

Source BBC
See how its only the BBC that reports it as unconfirmed, yet in other countries, like Russia (I know this because I have the Russian News channel, Vesti) it IS confirmed, along with a lot of other countries. The UK, France & America will deny it all they can, because thats what they do, if they do admitt to killing civilians can you imagine how angered the Libyan people will be and the people at home in the UK? Trying to stop Gadaffi killing civilians, yet they go in and kill more? You may think the BBC is un-biased, but trust me, it is not.

[StefanWolves]

me lecturing people? wtf. you only have to look at the size of your posts to realise who it is thats trying to lecture people.
Thats the response you can muster? at the start of this thread you were only too keen on lecturing other people, arguing in favour of this war and throwing insults around at those who disagreed with you. As the saying goes; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. :P

You called Ayd and MrJordan ignorant.. I think you have shown that in your own behaviour to be false, perhaps an apology to them is needed?

[Chippiewill]

Because of the following reasons;


We are going in for oil and influence, not for democracy or human rights (see examples of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).
We have supported Gaddafi for over a decade upto this point, I am now being told by our politicians that we need to go in to help free the Libyan people when they have been the ones supporting him for 10 years+.
I do not think the western world has a right anymore to police the world, and only leads to blowback on our own soil.
We do not have the financial power anymore to act even if we wanted to, the western world is bankrupt and cannot afford this action.
I do not think British men and women should die when this country has not been threatened.
I do not like first hand aggression, had Gaddafi declared war on the west then that would be a different story.

Blablahblahblahblah

We all know the real reason is so that you can slam the bigger parties hoping that someone will take notice and actually vote for UKIP. What you've actually neglected to notice is that UKIP will actually have to make the exact same choice if they ever want to get elected into parliament within the next century.


We are going in for oil and influence, not for democracy or human rights (see examples of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).
Libya has pretty terrible oil.


We have supported Gaddafi for over a decade upto this point, I am now being told by our politicians that we need to go in to help free the Libyan people when they have been the ones supporting him for 10 years+.
They have to draw a line somewhere, if they start invading countries because 'They're slightly upset about the way things are being run' the chinese will attack 'em whereas if they're terrorising their own people it's a whole different story. It might seem like a sharp contrast but that's politics.

I do not think the western world has a right anymore to police the world, and only leads to blowback on our own soil.
Of course it doesn't have the right to police the world, but everyone has the right to take down some idiot who's firing at his own people.


We do not have the financial power anymore to act even if we wanted to, the western world is bankrupt and cannot afford this action.
Christ, it's as if you think this'll cost a billion pounds per day, all they're doing is dropping a couple of missiles and deploying some planes.


I do not think British men and women should die when this country has not been threatened.
Not yet at least, but if Gaddafi has the nerve to attack his own people then what's to stop him attacking others.


I do not like first hand aggression, had Gaddafi declared war on the west then that would be a different story.
Regardless of the 'real' intentions that you have forged if we were to lose a soldier to save 100 Libyans then that's a victory for everyone except Gaddaff's terrible regime.

Essentially what you're saying is that we should have left Hitler to slaughter the Jews and slowly take over Europe and only react when the entire conquered planet is at our gates trying to invade. What you are suggesting is that we should have let Hitler slowly murder millions of people because "he wasn't attacking us yet".

Basically, you are a supporter of Hitler's holocaust.

[StefanWolves]

+rep say no more.
Blablahblahblahblah

We all know the real reason is so that you can slam the bigger parties hoping that someone will take notice and actually vote for UKIP. What you've actually neglected to notice is that UKIP will actually have to make the exact same choice if they ever want to get elected into parliament within the next century.


Libya has pretty terrible oil.


They have to draw a line somewhere, if they start invading countries because 'They're slightly upset about the way things are being run' the chinese will attack 'em whereas if they're terrorising their own people it's a whole different story. It might seem like a sharp contrast but that's politics.

I do not think the western world has a right anymore to police the world, and only leads to blowback on our own soil.
Of course it doesn't have the right to police the world, but everyone has the right to take down some idiot who's firing at his own people.


Christ, it's as if you think this'll cost a billion pounds per day, all they're doing is dropping a couple of missiles and deploying some planes.


Not yet at least, but if Gaddafi has the nerve to attack his own people then what's to stop him attacking others.


Regardless of the 'real' intentions that you have forged if we were to lose a soldier to save 100 Libyans then that's a victory for everyone except Gaddaff's terrible regime.

Essentially what you're saying is that we should have left Hitler to slaughter the Jews and slowly take over Europe and only react when the entire conquered planet is at our gates trying to invade. What you are suggesting is that we should have let Hitler slowly murder millions of people because "he wasn't attacking us yet".

Basically, you are a supporter of Hitler's holocaust.

---------- Post added 20-03-2011 at 09:45 PM ----------

Btw Undertaker why are your posts structured as if your answering Prime Ministers questions? you do realise your not Prime Minister? :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

We all know the real reason is so that you can slam the bigger parties hoping that someone will take notice and actually vote for UKIP. What you've actually neglected to notice is that UKIP will actually have to make the exact same choice if they ever want to get elected into parliament within the next century.

Whether UKIP takes us into this war or the Green Party, frankly it doesn't matter. I don't believe i've brought political parties into this thread actually, with the exception of the Nigel Farage video which has been posted alongside other videos.

So nice try, but lets stay on topic shall we?


Libya has pretty terrible oil.

What total nonsense, 'terrible oil' is that why western companies all had assets tied up in Libya, to get hold of this 'terrible oil'?


They have to draw a line somewhere, if they start invading countries because 'They're slightly upset about the way things are being run' the chinese will attack 'em whereas if they're terrorising their own people it's a whole different story. It might seem like a sharp contrast but that's politics.

Its not about 'how things are run' its about political prisoner camps (you mention Hitler below, similar to the gulags/concentration camps, China has an estimated one million people in political prisoner camps). These regimes treat their people like dirt yet our politicians and people such as yourself don't give a toss unless its a regime which has turned against us, and then you want to go in with all guns blazing pretending to be the saints of democracy and human rights.

The hypocrisy disgusts me.


Of course it doesn't have the right to police the world, but everyone has the right to take down some idiot who's firing at his own people.

Why are Bahrain, Zimbabwe, Burma, Saudi Arabia exceptions then?


Christ, it's as if you think this'll cost a billion pounds per day, all they're doing is dropping a couple of missiles and deploying some planes.

War costs a lot of money believe me, money we do not have.

How do you think the British Empire went broke?


Not yet at least, but if Gaddafi has the nerve to attack his own people then what's to stop him attacking others.

Whats stopping King Abdullah attacking others? oh wait, he already is right now in Bahrain! but as they are both pro-western regimes, best to keep quiet about them isn't it!? shhhhh.


Regardless of the 'real' intentions that you have forged if we were to lose a soldier to save 100 Libyans then that's a victory for everyone except Gaddaff's terrible regime.

Ready to sign up then?


Essentially what you're saying is that we should have left Hitler to slaughter the Jews and slowly take over Europe and only react when the entire conquered planet is at our gates trying to invade. What you are suggesting is that we should have let Hitler slowly murder millions of people because "he wasn't attacking us yet".

Actually yes I think thats what you'll find my position on World War II and World War I is, non-interventionalism. The fact is that WW2 was a waste of time, British not only lost her Empire but we swapped the concentration camps for the Soviet gulags which ended in a killing spree which killed far more than Hitler ever did so - we attacked Nazi Germany while we were ill prepared and over-stretched over a treaty with Poland which was on the other side of Europe of which we had no hope of liberating. As it turns out, Poland ended up then being placed under the terror of the red army.

The killing is terrible, but it goes and and always will go on - are you proposing we invade China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Bahrain, Yemen and Oman? its a yes or no question, I await the reply.


Basically, you are a supporter of Hitler's holocaust.

Mhmm surely you and western politicians are? because afterall i'm not the one whos been advocating and actually doing deals with Gaddafi while he tortures his politicial opponents in underground prisons while Antony Blair [the hero of you interventionalists] flys over and has some photographs taken with him. Do you have a tgerrible memory, or are you purposely ignorant of the facts and history of foreign policy?


+rep say no more.

---------- Post added 20-03-2011 at 09:45 PM ----------

Btw Undertaker why are your posts structured as if your answering Prime Ministers questions? you do realise your not Prime Minister? :/

Because I can easily beat people such as yourself in debates such as this because I have history on my side, which you do not. I continue to prove you wrong thus proven by the fact you yourself have nothing worthy to reply and keep posting smart arse comments in return. Reply to my posts and prove me wrong, otherwise keep your head down and walk on.

[StefanWolves]

Whether UKIP takes us into this war or the Green Party, frankly it doesn't matter. I don't believe i've brought political parties into this thread actually, with the exception of the Nigel Farage video which has been posted alongside other videos.

So nice try, but lets stay on topic shall we?



What total nonsense, 'terrible oil' is that why western companies all had assets tied up in Libya, to get hold of this 'terrible oil'?



Its not about 'how things are run' its about political prisoner camps (you mention Hitler below, similar to the gulags/concentration camps, China has an estimated one million people in political prisoner camps). These regimes treat their people like dirt yet our politicians and people such as yourself don't give a toss unless its a regime which has turned against us, and then you want to go in with all guns blazing pretending to be the saints of democracy and human rights.

The hypocrisy disgusts me.



Why are Bahrain, Zimbabwe, Burma, Saudi Arabia exceptions then?



War costs a lot of money believe me, money we do not have.

How do you think the British Empire went broke?



Whats stopping King Abdullah attacking others? oh wait, he already is right now in Bahrain! but as they are both pro-western regimes, best to keep quiet about them isn't it!? shhhhh.



Ready to sign up then?



Actually yes I think thats what you'll find my position on World War II and World War I is, non-interventionalism. The fact is that WW2 was a waste of time, British not only lost her Empire but we swapped the concentration camps for the Soviet gulags which ended in a killing spree which killed far more than Hitler ever did so - we attacked Nazi Germany while we were ill prepared and over-stretched over a treaty with Poland which was on the other side of Europe of which we had no hope of liberating. As it turns out, Poland ended up then being placed under the terror of the red army.

The killing is terrible, but it goes and and always will go on - are you proposing we invade China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Bahrain, Yemen and Oman? its a yes or no question, I await the reply.



Mhmm surely you and western politicians are? because afterall i'm not the one whos been advocating and actually doing deals with Gaddafi while he tortures his politicial opponents in underground prisons while Antony Blair [the hero of you interventionalists] flys over and has some photographs taken with him. Do you have a tgerrible memory, or are you purposely ignorant of the facts and history of foreign policy?



Because I can easily beat people such as yourself in debates such as this because I have history on my side, which you do not. I continue to prove you wrong thus proven by the fact you yourself have nothing worthy to reply and keep posting smart arse comments in return. Reply to my posts and prove me wrong, otherwise keep your head down and walk on.
omg you beat me in a debate :( gutted. honest.

fact is you don't 'beat' anyone. what you simply do is reply with 1000's of paragraphs cause you have somehow convinced yourself that your argument is the correct one. to be honest i don't even bother reading MOST of your posts because most of your posts are full of brainwashing drivel.

[Ajthedragon]

Wow are you really that ignorant? Yea these countries may be 'interested' in the oil but the fact of the matter is that 100s if not 1000s are being killed because they are rebelling against this disgusting man and his disgusting regime.

The Libyan people want him out, most are to scared to speak out because the minority that do are being bombarded and murdered by Gadaffi's 'army'.

They wanted him out for years, where were we then. We supported the ****** just for their oil. Now we have to overthrow him to get it back and save lives. Wasn't exactly being ignorant.. It's my own opinion, attacking me proves nothing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm sorry to sound arrogant, but I really am right - its simply just fact that we've supported his regime and continue to support others.


omg you beat me in a debate :( gutted. honest.

fact is you don't 'beat' anyone. what you simply do is reply with 1000's of paragraphs cause you have somehow convinced yourself that your argument is the correct one. to be honest i don't even bother reading MOST of your posts because most of your posts are full of brainwashing drivel.

Isn't that what you were doing at the start of the thread, lecturing Ayd and MrJordan and calling them ignorant just because they didn't agree with the drivel you posted? Pot kettle black mate, if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. You've met your match, somebody who is willing to debate you yet you've nothing worthy to say, perhaps because what i'm saying is factual and true?

Again, if none of it is true and its all brainwashing drivel, then prove me wrong. Make me look the fool.

[Chippiewill]

The killing is terrible, but it goes and and always will go on - are you proposing we invade China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Bahrain, Yemen and Oman? its a yes or no question, I await the reply.

In order to attack a country in these modern times without getting nuked by the many powerful countries of this planet you need the following things:

1) A recent topical reason, for example a revolt where they are attacking innocent
2) The ability to 'win' the fight
3) Public support (At least to some extent), you don't want a riot on your hands
4) Approval by other countries of the actions

So my reply is yes if possible to achieve, otherwise no.


Mhmm surely you and western politicians are? because afterall i'm not the one whos been advocating and actually doing deals with Gaddafi while he tortures his politicial opponents in underground prisons while Antony Blair [the hero of you interventionalists] flys over and has some photographs taken with him. Do you have a tgerrible memory, or are you purposely ignorant of the facts and history of foreign policy?
As I just said, you need support to invade a country and sort things out. Until that point you may as well be chummy and try to negotiate. Surely you understand the way politics work; either you're enemies or friends.


Ready to sign up then?
Alas I am a coward and I think too much, I'm not the sort that would be able to do that. But don't go on about how if I can't go myself then how do I have the nerve to order others, because we've got ten rounds on that before and it's another pointless circular argument.


War costs a lot of money believe me, money we do not have.
Do you really think that the Government didn't decide to put some money aside a while back in case this was required?

--

So, do you support the Holocaust? If you were in Winston Churchill's shoes and realised that the Jews were being slaughtered for no reason you would do nothing?

Edit:

perhaps because what i'm saying is factual and true?

Perhaps:

- You're arrogant
- You're stubborn
- You're not swayed by reason
- You're a bigot

[-:Undertaker:-]

In order to attack a country in these modern times without getting nuked by the many powerful countries of this planet you need the following things:

1) A recent topical reason, for example a revolt where they are attacking innocent
2) The ability to 'win' the fight
3) Public support (At least to some extent), you don't want a riot on your hands
4) Approval by other countries of the actions

So my reply is yes if possible to achieve, otherwise no.

The United States has something like double the power of all world armed forces combined, the United States could go into a vast majority of these countries its friends and topple the regimes.

And thats not even including other NATO forces.


As I just said, you need support to invade a country and sort things out. Until that point you may as well be chummy and try to negotiate. Surely you understand the way politics work; either you're enemies or friends.

So in other words, its just as I said - not about freedom and democracy, its about friends and hypocritical politics (which includes oil interests). Why don't you lot simply just agree with me that it is about that and not about freedom and human rights? (because I have the examples and i've listed them, you've just admitted it).


Alas I am a coward and I think too much, I'm not the sort that would be able to do that. But don't go on about how if I can't go myself then how do I have the nerve to order others, because we've got ten rounds on that before and it's another pointless circular argument.

Ahh so its for other kids to die instead of you, so you dont really believe in it thats what you really mean.


Do you really think that the Government didn't decide to put some money aside a while back in case this was required?

No, just as it hasn't for the past decade (see the financial crisis and public overspending nearing £8tn).


So, do you support the Holocaust? If you were in Winston Churchill's shoes and realised that the Jews were being slaughtered for no reason you would do nothing?

No I don't support the holocaust.

Here's an equally as stupid question, Do you support the political imprisonment, torture and extermination of opponents of the Saudi regime, Chinese regime, Cuban regime, Yemen regime, Burmese regime and so forth?


Perhaps:

- You're arrogant
- You're stubborn
- You're not swayed by reason
- You're a bigot

Yeah well, your an evil facist/racist homophobic xenophobic bigot.

:rolleyes:

[Chippiewill]

The United States has something like double the power of all world armed forces combined, the United States could go into a vast majority of these countries its friends and topple the regimes.
Have you heard of these new fangled things called 'Nukes'? If other countries don't agree then they can 'use them' and then we 'all die'.



So in other words, its just as I said - not about freedom and democracy, its about friends and hypocritical politics (which includes oil interests). Why don't you lot simply just agree with me that it is about that and not about freedom and human rights? (because I have the examples and i've listed them, you've just admitted it).
Work with what you've got given, heck the negotiation might save lives.


Ahh so its for other kids to die instead of you, so you dont really believe in it thats what you really mean.
No, I'd prefer not to die is all. If they want to be in the army and do 'army things' then they can.


No I don't support the holocaust.
So what's this then?


Here's an equally as stupid question, Do you support the political imprisonment, torture and extermination of opponents of the Saudi regime, Chinese regime, Cuban regime, Yemen regime, Burmese regime and so forth?
No, can't do anything about that for political reasons :( (The whole, 'not getting nuked' thing)



Yeah well, your a evil facist/racist homophobic xenophobic bigot.
you're*

Also in future please have the manners to spell my name properly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you heard of these new fangled things called 'Nukes'? If other countries don't agree then they can 'use them' and then we 'all die'.

Oh yes, but Burma, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Zimbabwe and so on don't have nuclear weapons capable of wiping our our forces/reaching our own soil. And even if you don't want to attack them, why have we got to arm them and cuddle upto them as we have done for the past few decades?

But I do understand what you mean by the nuclear issue with China, which is why i'm arguing getting involved is ridiculous - just as ridiculous as when we attacked Nazi Germany which we very very nearly all ended up coming under a terrible dictatorship and why? because our politicians attacked when we were over-stretched.


Work with what you've got given.

I want an answer here, its not about human rights and democracy - are you in agreement?


No, I'd prefer not to die is all. If they want to be in the army and do 'army things' then they can.

I'm pretty sure they don't join the army looking for bloodythirsty adventures, we have armed forces to protect this country. Why do you think non-interventionalist Ron Paul in 2008 raised the most money from active duty officers?


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

Imagine, i'm Paul and you are McCain - thats the kind of emotional argument you have going here.


No, can't do anything about that for political reasons :( (The whole, 'not getting nuked' thing)

Those countries with the exception of China don't have nuclear weapons, so again - why are they any different to Libya? why is it that certain brutal regimes are simply dreadful and need removing, yet other brutual regimes who are just as dreadful (some would even argue more dreadful) are our 'friends'? I say again, this is not about freedom, democracy and human rights - its about saving face and oil.

As we speak right now, pro-western Saudi Arabia is sending in troops to pro-western Bahrain - in order to do the same as Gaddafi is to his own people. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is part of the coalition enforcing the no fly zone in the name of 'human rights'.

[Conservative,]

As I said in Undertaker's newest thread - I don't believe it is right to be hypocritical and continue to support regimes like Saudi Arabia whilst going in on Gadaffi. In my opinion we have 2 options.

1) Campaign, promote and fight for democracy in all the Arab dictatorship states - regardless of our relationship with them (Which I am for)
2) Leave everyone alone.
You can't pick and choose. That is hypocritical and just shows that we're NOT in it for democracy, otherwise we'd be fighting against most of the regimes in North Africa/Middle East

[StefanWolves]

Not gonna bother posting now, cba with it as I actually have a life and have better things to do. One thing I will say, the amount of +rep's I have got from this thread from posts directed at you says volumes about you and your brainwashing context, Undertaker.

Good night.

[Chippiewill]

Blah
If you're not going to bother reading my posts properly I'm not going to bother repeating myself. I've stated every answer I need to give, it's your choice to ignore them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Intelligent replies, but its clear you both won't give an answer or address the hypocrisy involved in this, but you can set it straight (see below)!


Not gonna bother posting now, cba with it as I actually have a life and have better things to do. One thing I will say, the amount of +rep's I have got from this thread from posts directed at you says volumes about you and your brainwashing context, Undertaker.

Good night.


If you're not going to bother reading my posts properly I'm not going to bother repeating myself. I've stated every answer I need to give, it's your choice to ignore them.

I do hope that you'll both stay true to your words(?) and post in this thread (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=692019)demanding military action from our leaders against the pro-western regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia who are currently gunning down their people in a co-ordinated attack for demanding freedoms and human rights.

It would also be nice to see you both sign up and do your bit, but I won't hold my breath.

[StefanWolves]

Hello keyboard warrior, do you get a kick out of re-enacting David Cameron?
Intelligent replies, but its clear you both won't give an answer or address the hypocrisy involved in this, but you can set it straight (see below)!





I do hope that you'll both stay true to your words(?) and post in this thread (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=692019)demanding military action from our leaders against the pro-western regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia who are currently gunning down their people in a co-ordinated attack for demanding freedoms and human rights.

It would also be nice to see you both sign up and do your bit, but I won't hold my breath.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Thought that was your last reply? and you call me the keyboard warrior, hmm..


Hello keyboard warrior, do you get a kick out of re-enacting David Cameron?

Now reply to the statement on the link provided instead of getting your knickers in a twist.

[The Don]

Thought that was your last reply? and you call me the keyboard warrior, hmm..



Now reply to the statement on the link provided instead of getting your knickers in a twist.

Libya was at a crisis point which had drawn vast media attention. the criteria for us to go in was perfect, whereas in china, and all the other places you've stated, they haven't got an uprising where rebels are capturing more and more city's daily. the fact that in libya it was at breaking point mixed with the fact we have allies to go in with, and also the fact that it's a war we can win, make it the smart thing to do. We can't go everywhere at once, dan. I'm sure if in five years time everything gets as bad as it was in libya and we have allies to back us up then yes, I think we would establish a no fly zone on thay country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Libya was at a crisis point which had drawn vast media attention. the criteria for us to go in was perfect, whereas in china, and all the other places you've stated, they haven't got an uprising where rebels are capturing more and more city's daily. the fact that in libya it was at breaking point mixed with the fact we have allies to go in with, and also the fact that it's a war we can win, make it the smart thing to do. We can't go everywhere at once, dan. I'm sure if in five years time everything gets as bad as it was in libya and we have allies to back us up then yes, I think we would establish a no fly zone on thay country.

So I take it you are saying in a nutshell that its about saving face in the fact that we've been seen as hypocritical by supporting him for this long and we continue to support the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain(?). Thats all I wanted if thats the case because i'm simply sick of hearing on here and in the media that we are going in to 'protect the people' or 'human rights and democracy' when we are clearly not. You do accept that don't you that its not about human rights or democracy? This is what my argument is mainly about.

Secondly you mention the fact that the rebels haven't captured much in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain - well thats for two reasons, 1) being that Saudi Arabia is using weapons we supplied it with to put down any unrest on its own soil/the soil of Bahrain & 2) I thought we went into Libya for exactly that, to help the losing side win its freedom?

Surely if thats the argument for going into Libya, those in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain need our help even more so?

[The Don]

So you've basically admitted its about saving face in the fact that we've been seen as hypocritical by supporting him for this long and we continue to support the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Thats all I wanted, i'm simply sick of hearing that we are going in to 'protect the people' or 'human rights and democracy' when we are clearly not.

You do accept that don't you?

No, by going in, we are protecting human rights, aren't we?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, by going in, we are protecting human rights, aren't we?

No because that doesnt make sense, you cant say you suddenly care about human rights and wish to protect them when we've been the ones supporting this guy for decades along with the fact that we are still supporting his neighbours (our 'friends') who are gunning down their own people.

So it isn't about human rights or democracy, its about saving face and oil interests.

[The Don]

No because that doesnt make sense, you cant say you suddenly care about human rights and wish to protect them when we've been the ones supporting this guy for decades along with the fact that we are still supporting his neighbours (our 'friends') who are gunning down their own people.

So it isn't about human rights or democracy, its about saving face and oil interests.

It doesn't matter whatever reason we are going in, but by going in, we are helping human rights in that country.
Win.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It doesn't matter whatever reason we are going in, but by going in, we are helping human rights in that country.
Win.

I accept that, but lets not pretend thats the reason why we are going in.

[The Don]

I accept that, but lets not pretend thats the reason why we are going in.

But, by going in, we are helping with human rights in that country, which you admit, so theres no argument, is there?

[-:Undertaker:-]

But, by going in, we are helping with human rights in that country, which you admit, so theres no argument, is there?

It depends, I don't see any real improvement with Iraq and Afghanistan considering the loss of life that resulted, so thats disputable but in theory could be true I accept. But again, its not the real reason we are going in, so lets not kid ourselves and lets not have our leaders kid us that it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3W6L8W-mmw

It must also be noted that Mr Bolton is telling fibs there, as Iraq invaded Kuwait due to Kuwait slant oil drilling despite warnings from Saddam.

[The Don]

It depends, I don't see any real improvement with Iraq and Afghanistan considering the loss of life that resulted, so thats disputable but in theory could be true I accept. But again, its not the real reason we are going in, so lets not kid ourselves and lets not have our leaders kid us that it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3W6L8W-mmw

No, because Iraq and Afghanistan are warzones at the moment.

Why does it matter what the reason is? To be honest, neither of us know the 'Real' reason, and It shouldn't really matter, it's the result that matters. And if we, as a country, can stop one more life from being taken, then why shouldn't we?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, because Iraq and Afghanistan are warzones at the moment.

Why does it matter what the reason is? To be honest, neither of us know the 'Real' reason, and It shouldn't really matter, it's the result that matters.

The real reason matters because this is war we are talking about, in a supposed democratic and free west we should be told the truth by our leaders. We deserve the truth as do our soldiers, especially when they are the ones being put in a dangerzone (and often end up dying in the process) for a reason their government will not disclose to them, their families or the public at large.


And if we, as a country, can stop one more life from being taken, then why shouldn't we?

Because as the lady in the video tells of her tale, more lives are taken in the process and it always results in blowback.

[The Don]

The real reason matters because this is war we are talking about, in a supposed democratic and free west we should be told the truth by our leaders. We deserve the truth as do our soldiers, especially when they are the ones being put in a dangerzone (and often end up dying in the process) for a reason their government will not disclose to them, their families or the public at large.



Because as the lady in the video tells of her tale, more lives are taken in the process and it always results in blowback.

the fact that you don't have the respect to reply to all of my post renders the question wheter you actually can respond to it. I'll ask again, how do you know if the reason given to us is fake? I certainly see it as a viable reason.

---------- Post added 21-03-2011 at 02:06 AM ----------


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYvrIS8TsDM

just though i'd post this.

[Stephen]

Just wondering but why does every thread in this forum end up being someone vs undertaker?

I'm actually starting to avoid this section because it's getting abit boring and stoof

btw not sure if the above is offtopic or not so ontopic:

sex bomb sex bomb, you're my sex bomb and baby you can turn me on :O

Edited by Dinasaw (Forum Moderator): Please try and stay on-topic.

[StefanWolves]

Mainly because Undertaker is above everyone and he is king and no argument put against him is the correct one lol
Just wondering but why does every thread in this forum end up being someone vs undertaker?

I'm actually starting to avoid this section because it's getting abit boring and stoof

btw not sure if the above is offtopic or not so ontopic:

sex bomb sex bomb, you're my sex bomb and baby you can turn me on :O

Edited by Dinasaw (Forum Moderator): Please try and stay on the topic of the thread.

[Inseriousity.]

Foreign policy is always going to be tricky as you have to take into account so many factors. It's perhaps irony that Hutchins/Hutchens (I cant remember which sorry) says that we should just stand back and then make friends with the winners. He mentions that the media simplifies and then exaggerates but to me, he is doing the same thing. If it was as simple as that I'd agree with him.

If the rebels won, for example, and they cried for help (which I'm sure I've seen reports of somewhere) from outside countries but the ass-licking didn't start until after they got into power, I wouldn't be quick to make friends with them (if I was rebel leader). Whereas if they helped me out then I'd be more willing to make deals with the countries that helped out.

I think it's naive to say it's a sudden fight for human rights. If the revolution had not started, I'm sure Cameron (and quite frankly anyone - I mean how many people were active in trying to improve human rights for Libya and other countries before the revolution started?) would have just kept turning a blind eye to it all.

However, I think that's all I agree with Dan on. I think it'd be a politically bad move NOT to go in, simply because it's good rhetoric. "We're fighting for human rights/we will not tolerate violence" looks brilliant on paper and makes them look good. I'd love to say that politicians would work for the best of the country but I know that they make strategies/decisions (perhaps subconciously) based on what they think would be best for them politically and/or bad for politicial opponents.

[StefanWolves]

Ye i agree, Cameron and especially Sarkozy have done it to make themselves look good, however that doesnt change the sole reason i agree with going into Libya because if we didnt it would simply have been attrocious if we didnt.
Foreign policy is always going to be tricky as you have to take into account so many factors. It's perhaps irony that Hutchins/Hutchens (I cant remember which sorry) says that we should just stand back and then make friends with the winners. He mentions that the media simplifies and then exaggerates but to me, he is doing the same thing. If it was as simple as that I'd agree with him.

If the rebels won, for example, and they cried for help (which I'm sure I've seen reports of somewhere) from outside countries but the ass-licking didn't start until after they got into power, I wouldn't be quick to make friends with them (if I was rebel leader). Whereas if they helped me out then I'd be more willing to make deals with the countries that helped out.

I think it's naive to say it's a sudden fight for human rights. If the revolution had not started, I'm sure Cameron (and quite frankly anyone - I mean how many people were active in trying to improve human rights for Libya and other countries before the revolution started?) would have just kept turning a blind eye to it all.

However, I think that's all I agree with Dan on. I think it'd be a politically bad move NOT to go in, simply because it's good rhetoric. "We're fighting for human rights/we will not tolerate violence" looks brilliant on paper and makes them look good. I'd love to say that politicians would work for the best of the country but I know that they make strategies/decisions (perhaps subconciously) based on what they think would be best for them politically and/or bad for politicial opponents.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Mainly because Undertaker is above everyone and he is king and no argument put against him is the correct one lol

Disprove my points then, instead of continuously posting little snide digs and then withdrawing from the debate.


the fact that you don't have the respect to reply to all of my post renders the question wheter you actually can respond to it. I'll ask again, how do you know if the reason given to us is fake? I certainly see it as a viable reason.

---------- Post added 21-03-2011 at 02:06 AM ----------


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYvrIS8TsDM

just though i'd post this.

I have responded to all of your post, i've explained that the real reason we are not going in for human rights and democracy (and i'll highlight it for you all) is because we have supported Gaddafi for decades and we continue to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain who are firing on their people as we speak. So it is not about human rights and democracy and how do I know? because of the past and indeed whats happening in the present. We have not cared and continue not to care about human rights or democracy, therefore the idea that 'we are going into Libya championing human rights and democracy' is nothing but war spin. (for a big example of war spin, see below - ring any bells?)

And as for John Bolton, he was part of the gang who told us that Saddam Hussein was somehow a threat to us, the west, and his neighbours (when infact he wasn't), along with the tale of how Saddam Hussein had WMD ready to to be fired at London within 45 minutes.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Technologic]

You wouldn't be complaining if you lived in Libya and the RAF saved your ass

[-:Undertaker:-]

You wouldn't be complaining if you lived in Libya and the RAF saved your ass

No I wouldn't, just the same for those who live in all dictatorships (when the Red Army 'liberated' Nazi Germany for example) - but we live in the real world, a world where you have blowback and where you have no money or moral authority to enforce these ideals. Why go into Libya now, why not back when Gaddafi was signing the oil contracts with Mr Blair whilst locking, torturing and executing those who opposed him? ahh thats right, its not about saving the people, democracy, human rights and the rest of it - its about oil and saving face, would you be prepared to die for those things? I doubt you would, so do not expect others to do it while our leaders pretend their dirty mission is some kind of heroric adventure for human rights.

If you are going to send our troops into harms way, at least have the respect to tell them the real reasons why they are going into a warzone - strangely enough, I don't think the serving men and women would be as keen to put their lives in the line then.

[Technologic]

I think you'll find those reasons outlined here....

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think you'll find those reasons outlined here....

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution

Thats complete tripe, as shown by my numerous examples - heard it all before, 'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD' that he never had. We were supporting Gaddafi and his brutal regime right upto the point until Tripoli was surrounded and it looked as though he were toast, then we swapped sides and now we look like the fools we are. The same can be applied to Bahrain right now, as a sort of prototype of what happened in Libya.

What is your objection to our leaders telling the truth to the public for this war? don't you think the soldiers and the public deserve the truth?

[StefanWolves]

Yawn..
Thats complete tripe, as shown by my numerous examples - heard it all before, 'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD' that he never had. We were supporting Gaddafi and his brutal regime right upto the point until Tripoli was surrounded and it looked as though he were toast, then we swapped sides and now we look like the fools we are. The same can be applied to Bahrain right now, as a sort of prototype of what happened in Libya.

What is your objection to our leaders telling the truth to the public for this war? don't you think the soldiers and the public deserve the truth?

[Technologic]

Thats complete tripe, as shown by my numerous examples - heard it all before, 'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD' that he never had. We were supporting Gaddafi and his brutal regime right upto the point until Tripoli was surrounded and it looked as though he were toast, then we swapped sides and now we look like the fools we are. The same can be applied to Bahrain right now, as a sort of prototype of what happened in Libya.

What is your objection to our leaders telling the truth to the public for this war? don't you think the soldiers and the public deserve the truth?

They are telling the truth... just because a few loony hippies think they aren't and that all problems can be solved with hugs and kisses does not mean they're liars.

UN > You in terms of the truth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are telling the truth... just because a few loony hippies think they aren't and that all problems can be solved with hugs and kisses does not mean they're liars.

UN > You in terms of the truth.

So what i'm saying about us supporting Gaddafi for over a decade, along with our continued support for Bahrain/Saudi Arabia is just made up is it?

[StefanWolves]

That was a different Government ffs. It was only right that western powers such as Tony Blair TRIED to get him in with the International community, but failed. If we hadnt have tried then would you be criticising?
So what i'm saying about us supporting Gaddafi for over a decade, along with our continued support for Bahrain/Saudi Arabia is just made up is it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That was a different Government ffs. It was only right that western powers such as Tony Blair TRIED to get him in with the International community, but failed. If we hadnt have tried then would you be criticising?

But he didn't change and it wasnt about him changing, hence why he never changed - it was so we could gain another 'friend' in the region and sign oil contracts. Gaddafi continued in his brutal ways before, during and after Mr Blair visited and signed the business deals. It was only a few weeks ago when the rebellion started (including in pro-western Egypt and Tunisia) that western leaders were slow to voice any support for the people until after the balance had tilted in favour of the rebels - the same occured in Libya, except it differed that Gaddafi made a comeback. He said it himself I recall, that his western friends had betrayed him - which they had.

Why is it that we only ever attack weak, anti-western brutal regimes who happen to have something we want? can you answer me that?

[StefanWolves]

Its alreay been explained to you that Libyan oil is rather rubbish dispite what the media may say, the UK produces more oil than the Libyans do.

So what exactly do they have that we want? Seeing as though we arent allowed to put armed forces on the ground and invade, how are we supposedly going to, as you say, 'get what we want'?
But he didn't change and it wasnt about him changing, hence why he never changed - it was so we could gain another 'friend' in the region and sign oil contracts. Gaddafi continued in his brutal ways before, during and after Mr Blair visited and signed the business deals.

Why is it that we only ever attack anti-western brutal regimes who happen to have something we want? can you answer me that?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its alreay been explained to you that Libyan oil is rather rubbish dispite what the media may say, the UK produces more oil than the Libyans do.

If Libyan oil is so 'crap', why were western companies so eager to extract that 'crap' oil? for the fun of it?


So what exactly do they have that we want? Seeing as though we arent allowed to put armed forces on the ground and invade, how are we supposedly going to, as you say, 'get what we want'?

Iraq has oil which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.
Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.

..compared to;

Saudi Arabia supplies us oil, it has a brutual pro-western government which we don't want removed.
Bahrain is strategically important, it has a brutal pro-western government which we don't want removed.

See the pattern?

We will get what we want either by eventually going in via ground troops (they say they wont, but look at the quagmires Vietnam and Afghanistan turned into which were originally small scale operations) or by cosying upto the rebels so that they sign deals with us - just like we did with Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya; all too happy to cuddle up and sign deals with the previous brutual regimes, then when the people eventually rose up we said "hey guys, we were on your side all along!".

[StefanWolves]

You still didnt answer my question... What do you want us to do? Just stand back and watch this happen?

And last time I checked Bahrain or Saudi Arabias then president didnt plan and execute the blowing up of a plane over Lockerbie, so theres history. Just saying.

And btw if this were about oil dont you think we would be taking Saudi Arabia by now?

[Chippiewill]

Disprove my points then, instead of continuously posting little snide digs and then withdrawing from the debate.
Oh we do, you just decide that our points are invalid.


I have responded to all of your post, i've explained that the real reason we are not going in for human rights and democracy (and i'll highlight it for you all) is because we have supported Gaddafi for decades and we continue to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain who are firing on their people as we speak. So it is not about human rights and democracy and how do I know? because of the past and indeed whats happening in the present. We have not cared and continue not to care about human rights or democracy, therefore the idea that 'we are going into Libya championing human rights and democracy' is nothing but war spin. (for a big example of war spin, see below - ring any bells?).

As I have already stated, if you cannot go in and win the fight and also have the public's support (Like they have at the moment) the only logical move is to sit back and try to negotiate to save lives or to get resources like Oil, that how diplomacy works. There's nothing to be gained by sitting there and making noises to indicate that you are disgruntled by them attacking their own civilians, it achieves nothing.


No I wouldn't, just the same for those who live in all dictatorships (when the Red Army 'liberated' Nazi Germany for example) - but we live in the real world, a world where you have blowback and where you have no money or moral authority to enforce these ideals. Why go into Libya now, why not back when Gaddafi was signing the oil contracts with Mr Blair whilst locking, torturing and executing those who opposed him? ahh thats right, its not about saving the people, democracy, human rights and the rest of it - its about oil and saving face, would you be prepared to die for those things? I doubt you would, so do not expect others to do it while our leaders pretend their dirty mission is some kind of heroric adventure for human rights.
Most people in the army aren't in the army to 'protect their queen and country' they're in the army for the money, it pays pretty damn well and you can be pretty close to being identified as ******ed and still be in the army, either that or they're in the army because they get to shoot big guns or big missiles. It's all a balance of: Risk of death Vs Pay.


'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD'
If someone threatens to attack you and has the resources to attack you and the motive to attack you then... YOU ******* GO IN AND STOP THEM ANYWAY. Sheesh.


If Libyan oil is so 'crap', why were western companies so eager to extract that 'crap' oil? for the fun of it?
To test it, they might eventually find a good vein of oil.


Iraq has oil which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.
Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.

..compared to;

Saudi Arabia supplies us oil, it has a brutual pro-western government which we don't want removed.
Bahrain is strategically important, it has a brutal pro-western government which we don't want removed.

See the pattern?
You have too few points there to prove a correlation, that and I'm too lazy to spend my time looking up examples which counter your suggested logic.

[StefanWolves]

I think you forgot that leader of Afghan was the person behind the 9/11 bombings and 7/7 London bombings and many more and that the leader of Iraq had once bombarded Kuwait and was slaughtering his own people.

See the relation that they have to Libya?
If Libyan oil is so 'crap', why were western companies so eager to extract that 'crap' oil? for the fun of it?



Iraq has oil which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.
Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits which we wanted, it also had a brutal anti-west government which we wanted removed.

..compared to;

Saudi Arabia supplies us oil, it has a brutual pro-western government which we don't want removed.
Bahrain is strategically important, it has a brutal pro-western government which we don't want removed.

See the pattern?

We will get what we want either by eventually going in via ground troops (they say they wont, but look at the quagmires Vietnam and Afghanistan turned into which were originally small scale operations) or by cosying upto the rebels so that they sign deals with us - just like we did with Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya; all too happy to cuddle up and sign deals with the previous brutual regimes, then when the people eventually rose up we said "hey guys, we were on your side all along!".

[JACKTARD]

My point is that, as we [the west] are the aggressors (and have declared war on Gaddafi, not the other way around) i'm certainly not in support of us 'hitting back harder' as you say because we shouldn't be there in the first place. We had no legit reason to declare war on Libya yet we've gone and done it purely for the reasons I mentioned in my post back on page one of this thread; to save face and of course, the oil is a big factor in this.

I'm afraid Gaddafi would now have legitimacy in attacking our forces, whereas we do not have the legitimacy in attacking his forces.


Surely if they fight back harder than we have hit them in the first place then the people of the country are going to take a dislike to the country and will be willing for us to attack back again (Even though we threw the first punch)

[-:Undertaker:-]

You still didnt answer my question... What do you want us to do? Just stand back and watch this happen?

YES IVE ALREADY SAID THIS - JUST LIKE WE DID IN THE SOVIET UNION, IRAN, UGANDA, THE CONGO, CAMBDODIA & just like we are right now in CUBA, CHINA, BURMA, ZIMBABWE, BAHRAIN, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN +countless others.

Clear enough?


And last time I checked Bahrain or Saudi Arabias then president didnt plan and execute the blowing up of a plane over Lockerbie, so theres history. Just saying.

Then why didn't we invade back then? Gaddafi was our friend until a few weeks ago, I don't consider him a friend - I consider him as evil, brutal and I personally have been waiting to see the end of all of these tyrants for many many years because I know that history shows the people always win. The people who considered Gaddafi a friend until a few weeks ago didn't turn their backs on him because he is brutal - they turned their backs on Gaddafi because it looked as though he was finished.

Now its come (as it always does) to bite them (and consquently us) from behind.


And btw if this were about oil dont you think we would be taking Saudi Arabia by now?

Noooo!! because as i've said countless times, Saudi Arabia supplies us with oil and is pro-western so there is no need to because as I keep saying, this is not about human rights or democracy because we do not care about it so its disgusting to pretend that we do. Lord give me strength!


Oh we do, you just decide that our points are invalid.

Because you don't have any points i'm afraid, none of you will admit that this is not about human rights and democracy - which the record, the facts show the west does not care about, both in the past and the present.

Now if you think thats not true, prove my points on the past and the present factually wrong.


As I have already stated, if you cannot go in and win the fight and also have the public's support (Like they have at the moment) the only logical move is to sit back and try to negotiate to save lives or to get resources like Oil, that how diplomacy works. There's nothing to be gained by sitting there and making noises to indicate that you are disgruntled by them attacking their own civilians, it achieves nothing.

So it is about oil you finally admit? right well then thats where we can now agree, now I do not think our people should possibly end up in body bags for the protection of oil - you obiously think that is a risk worth taking. Either way, our politicians should be honest and admit that our troops are getting involved for oil and not human rights/democracy ..and I wonder which side the people would take, mine or yours and the politicians?

I also oppose it on the basis that going in for oil would only anger many in the Middle East and result in blowback.


Most people in the army aren't in the army to 'protect their queen and country' they're in the army for the money, it pays pretty damn well and you can be pretty close to being identified as ******ed and still be in the army, either that or they're in the army because they get to shoot big guns or big missiles. It's all a balance of: Risk of death Vs Pay.

I don't think thats an excuse to send people into a country and possibly to their deaths simply to protect oil interests. Although fair game as I said, lets have our politicians tell the truth (as above) and we'll see how long that government lasts when it openly admits that our men and women are dying overseas for oil contracts.

If the government told the truth concerning these wars, how long do you think they would last? not long, thats for certain.


If someone threatens to attack you and has the resources to attack you and the motive to attack you then... YOU ******* GO IN AND STOP THEM ANYWAY. Sheesh.

Saddam Hussein did not threaten to attack his neighbours nor one single western power.


To test it, they might eventually find a good vein of oil.

So oil interests, as I keep saying.


You have too few points there to prove a correlation, that and I'm too lazy to spend my time looking up examples which counter your suggested logic.

Yeah, maybe what i'm saying is all made up. Maybe those military bases in Bahrain are just a figment of my imagination, maybe these pictures are all just doctored and none of this ever happened, we can dream can't we?

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gaddafi_blair.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/gaddafiEPA1012_468x533.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01347ff209fd970c-500wi
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/2007/7/23/Mubarak%20and%20Bush.jpg
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mubarak-obama-peace.jpg

I could go on and include Saudi royalty, Bahrain royalty.. but you should get the picture.


I think you forgot that leader of Afghan was the person behind the 9/11 bombings and 7/7 London bombings and many more and that the leader of Iraq had once bombarded Kuwait and was slaughtering his own people.

I think if you look into the invasion of Kuwait you will see a very different picture; Saddam Hussein warned the Emir of Kuwait to stop all Kuwaiti oil drilling operations (as Kuwait was slant drilling onto sovereign Iraqi soil) - the Emir refused, citing that he had his American friends and refused to stop despite the threat from Saddam.

Saddam then called U.S. representative (I believe it was Mary Albridge) directly to himself, and asked very simply what the reaction/position of the United States would be concerning military action by Iraq - the United States gave him the green light and so he invaded Kuwait.


See the relation that they have to Libya?

Nope, the Taliban refused to cuddle upto the west after those events - unlike Gaddafi who was accepted like an old friend, as though none of his attacks on the west ever happened. In a way I guess they are similar, and that should show to you the fact that we became 'friends' with this man who committed terrorist attacks means that all of this 'but Gaddafi attacked us, remember - so its only right to get him back' is complete and utter war spin.


Surely if they fight back harder than we have hit them in the first place then the people of the country are going to take a dislike to the country and will be willing for us to attack back again (Even though we threw the first punch)

Thats the mess we've had ourselves in for years and it results in blowback. It happens all the time, take Bin Laden and the Taliban for example - we armed these islamic fighters in their war against the Soviet Union and they later turned on us. We are now doing the exact same in Libya with the rebels by supporting them, no doubt with arms and money in due time.

The people of the Arab world will simply look on this as about oil (see my examples), the people of Bahrain and Yemen and so forth will look on Libya recieving help while their own people are slaughtered by pro-western regimes - a breeding ground for al Qaeda is now brewing and its all because we get ourselves into ridiculous positions like we are now.

If we go into Libya, we will see blowback on our own soil.

[StefanWolves]

Haven't you got anything better to do than write 50 paragraph replies? your not in the house of commons you know.
YES IVE ALREADY SAID THIS - JUST LIKE WE DID IN THE SOVIET UNION, IRAN, UGANDA, THE CONGO, CAMBDODIA & just like we are right now in CUBA, CHINA, BURMA, ZIMBABWE, BAHRAIN, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN +countless others.

Clear enough?



Then why didn't we invade back then? Gaddafi was our friend until a few weeks ago, I don't consider him a friend - I consider him as evil, brutal and I personally have been waiting to see the end of all of these tyrants for many many years because I know that history shows the people always win. The people who considered Gaddafi a friend until a few weeks ago didn't turn their backs on him because he is brutal - they turned their backs on Gaddafi because it looked as though he was finished.

Now its come (as it always does) to bite them (and consquently us) from behind.



Noooo!! because as i've said countless times, Saudi Arabia supplies us with oil and is pro-western so there is no need to because as I keep saying, this is not about human rights or democracy because we do not care about it so its disgusting to pretend that we do. Lord give me strength!



Because you don't have any points i'm afraid, none of you will admit that this is not about human rights and democracy - which the record, the facts show the west does not care about, both in the past and the present.

Now if you think thats not true, prove my points on the past and the present factually wrong.



So it is about oil you finally admit? right well then thats where we can now agree, now I do not think our people should possibly end up in body bags for the protection of oil - you obiously think that is a risk worth taking. Either way, our politicians should be honest and admit that our troops are getting involved for oil and not human rights/democracy ..and I wonder which side the people would take, mine or yours and the politicians?

I also oppose it on the basis that going in for oil would only anger many in the Middle East and result in blowback.



I don't think thats an excuse to send people into a country and possibly to their deaths simply to protect oil interests. Although fair game as I said, lets have our politicians tell the truth (as above) and we'll see how long that government lasts when it openly admits that our men and women are dying overseas for oil contracts.

If the government told the truth concerning these wars, how long do you think they would last? not long, thats for certain.



Saddam Hussein did not threaten to attack his neighbours nor one single western power.



So oil interests, as I keep saying.



Yeah, maybe what i'm saying is all made up. Maybe those military bases in Bahrain are just a figment of my imagination, maybe these pictures are all just doctored and none of this ever happened, we can dream can't we?

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gaddafi_blair.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/gaddafiEPA1012_468x533.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01347ff209fd970c-500wi
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/2007/7/23/Mubarak%20and%20Bush.jpg
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mubarak-obama-peace.jpg

I could go on and include Saudi royalty, Bahrain royalty.. but you should get the picture.



I think if you look into the invasion of Kuwait you will see a very different picture; Saddam Hussein warned the Emir of Kuwait to stop all Kuwaiti oil drilling operations (as Kuwait was slant drilling onto sovereign Iraqi soil) - the Emir refused, citing that he had his American friends and refused to stop despite the threat from Saddam.

Saddam then called U.S. representative (I believe it was Mary Albridge) directly to himself, and asked very simply what the reaction/position of the United States would be concerning military action by Iraq - the United States gave him the green light and so he invaded Kuwait.



Nope, the Taliban refused to cuddle upto the west after those events - unlike Gaddafi who was accepted like an old friend, as though none of his attacks on the west ever happened. In a way I guess they are similar, and that should show to you the fact that we became 'friends' with this man who committed terrorist attacks means that all of this 'but Gaddafi attacked us, remember - so its only right to get him back' is complete and utter war spin.



Thats the mess we've had ourselves in for years and it results in blowback. It happens all the time, take Bin Laden and the Taliban for example - we armed these islamic fighters in their war against the Soviet Union and they later turned on us. We are now doing the exact same in Libya with the rebels by supporting them, no doubt with arms and money in due time.

The people of the Arab world will simply look on this as about oil (see my examples), the people of Bahrain and Yemen and so forth will look on Libya recieving help while their own people are slaughtered by pro-western regimes - a breeding ground for al Qaeda is now brewing and its all because we get ourselves into ridiculous positions like we are now.

If we go into Libya, we will see blowback on our own soil.

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts that do not contribute to the thread discussion, thanks!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Haven't you got anything better to do than write 50 paragraph replies? your not in the house of commons you know.

Thank you for vertifying my entire argument with that one post. :)

[StefanWolves]

Thank you for vertifying my entire argument with that one post. :)

yawn. stop trolling me nw please.

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts that do not contribute to the thread discussion, thanks!

[Chippiewill]

Because you don't have any points i'm afraid, none of you will admit that this is not about human rights and democracy - which the record, the facts show the west does not care about, both in the past and the present.
We have made counter points, you just fail to seem to join the dots half the time.


Now if you think thats not true, prove my points on the past and the present factually wrong.
I have.



So it is about oil you finally admit? right well then thats where we can now agree, now I do not think our people should possibly end up in body bags for the protection of oil - you obiously think that is a risk worth taking. Either way, our politicians should be honest and admit that our troops are getting involved for oil and not human rights/democracy ..and I wonder which side the people would take, mine or yours and the politicians?
That's not what I said, they were negotiating before hand... maybe for oil. But not necessarily going in for it now. Stop twisting my words.

Although, to further counter this point, I asked a few friends at school today who are planning to join the army, navy etc.... not one of them wanted to join to defend 'Queen and country' they want to join because:

- They want to shoot guns
- They want to polish boots (This made no sense; but whatever, you have to be pretty weird to want to join anyway)
- One wanted to join because they'll pay you through university
- One actually wanted to join for the sole purpose of securing oil from middle eastern countries, no joke, they were actually serious about this.

So stop making this nonsense up that they only join for defence purposes. And as I understand it, so far our presence in Libya is currently relatively risk free anyway.


I don't think thats an excuse to send people into a country and possibly to their deaths simply to protect oil interests. Although fair game as I said, lets have our politicians tell the truth (as above) and we'll see how long that government lasts when it openly admits that our men and women are dying overseas for oil contracts.

If the government told the truth concerning these wars, how long do you think they would last? not long, thats for certain.
If you look at the ratio of the number of soldiers in Iraq, and the number of soldiers in Iraq you'd actually see that they're more likely to be run over and Iraq is this 'massive' disaster.


Saddam Hussein did not threaten to attack his neighbours nor one single western power.
If someone says they have WMDs they don't say it because they don't intend to use it.


So oil interests, as I keep saying.
I doubt that the global governments would be going in on the sheer chance that some good Libyan oil is found.

[QUOTE=-:Undertaker:-;7043345]Yeah, maybe what i'm saying is all made up. Maybe those military bases in Bahrain are just a figment of my imagination, maybe these pictures are all just doctored and none of this ever happened, we can dream can't we?

http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gaddafi_blair.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/gaddafiEPA1012_468x533.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01347ff209fd970c-500wi
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/2007/7/23/Mubarak%20and%20Bush.jpg
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mubarak-obama-peace.jpg

I could go on and include Saudi royalty, Bahrain royalty.. but you should get the picture.

I said that you did not have enough points to prove a correlation, not that you didn't have enough pictures to prove your current ones. And as I have said before, without public support, the best they can do is pretend to get along.

[Eoin247]

This unfortunately does not look like it's going to end very well.

Everybody seems to underestimate how much money Ghadafi has, and the networks of contacts he has created as a result of this.

I wouldn't underestimate Ghadafi. He isn't going to step down. The only way to get rid of him is by force. If this isn't done soon enough i can guarantee you he will make true his vow to have revenge. Remember what happened after the US bombed Libya? Lockerbie.

[StefanWolves]

Gadaffi wouldnt do another Lockerbie. No chance. Not aften what happened to Bin Ladan and Afghan. He wouldnt dare...

[Eoin247]

Gadaffi wouldnt do another Lockerbie. No chance. Not aften what happened to Bin Ladan and Afghan. He wouldnt dare...

What do you mean "happened to Bin Laden"? He's still plotting against the west uncaptured.

He is prepared to fight to the end. There is no doubt about that. I'm pretty sure that given the chance and time he will get at least some revenge on the west.

[Conservative,]

This unfortunately does not look like it's going to end very well.

Everybody seems to underestimate how much money Ghadafi has, and the networks of contacts he has created as a result of this.

I wouldn't underestimate Ghadafi. He isn't going to step down. The only way to get rid of him is by force. If this isn't done soon enough i can guarantee you he will make true his vow to have revenge. Remember what happened after the US bombed Libya? Lockerbie.

As Stefan said, he won't risk it. It would give us, or whoever was targeted, the perfect excuse to go in and execute him there and then. At the moment we only have permission to support the rebels etc. and enforce the no fly zone. Why give us an excuse to target him? He maybe insane, but he still knows what he's doing - he'll just keep fighting back.

[Eoin247]

As Stefan said, he won't risk it. It would give us, or whoever was targeted, the perfect excuse to go in and execute him there and then. At the moment we only have permission to support the rebels etc. and enforce the no fly zone. Why give us an excuse to target him? He maybe insane, but he still knows what he's doing - he'll just keep fighting back.

He's going to be removed by the west eventualy. It's only a question of when. As he's prepared to fight until the bitter end, he'll probably want to take as many of his "enemies" with him as well.

[GommeInc]

This unfortunately does not look like it's going to end very well.

Everybody seems to underestimate how much money Ghadafi has, and the networks of contacts he has created as a result of this.

I wouldn't underestimate Ghadafi. He isn't going to step down. The only way to get rid of him is by force. If this isn't done soon enough i can guarantee you he will make true his vow to have revenge. Remember what happened after the US bombed Libya? Lockerbie.
As far as I can tell, the allied forces are more interested in blowing stuff up than actually dealing with the Libyan disaster :/ If they want Gaddafi out, they would be going straight for him, not blowing up potentially useless targets. Yet again, another war entered in where the main objective isn't being acted upon :/

[Robbb]

Why do we always have to try and save people?! Iraq War had nothing to do with us... well until the Underground Bombings. Now Libya, it's got nothing to do with us. Leave the Libyans to their war, don't go sending out troops who will eventually get shot, because A) it's not their fight. and B) the people over there don't care who they kill.

[StefanWolves]

Sorry but that is totally the wrong view to take byoy cannot just leave a country, especially a muslim one (Al Qeda could base their) to escalate to civil war. Its just not right.
Why do we always have to try and save people?! Iraq War had nothing to do with us... well until the Underground Bombings. Now Libya, it's got nothing to do with us. Leave the Libyans to their war, don't go sending out troops who will eventually get shot, because A) it's not their fight. and B) the people over there don't care who they kill.

[GommeInc]

It's fascinating how different age groups are perceiving this. Quite a few people I know in their University years think what we're doing is wrong to some degree, and KNOW it's wrong. We're needed more in places like Ivory Coast and palces were people have always been killed for standing up to the establishment where other countries are pouring in weapons, effectively assisting these corrupt nations into killing their own people for the sake of power. The Libya conflict (or war) is pointless, and shows the Western world is a waste of space.

[Conservative,]

Looks like Syria is next.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12858972

[Eoin247]

As far as I can tell, the allied forces are more interested in blowing stuff up than actually dealing with the Libyan disaster :/ If they want Gaddafi out, they would be going straight for him, not blowing up potentially useless targets. Yet again, another war entered in where the main objective isn't being acted upon :/

Well the ''Official'' objective is being acted on technically. However i believe like most that the final and main objective is to get rid of Gaddafi.


Looks like Syria is next.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12858972

In this case it looks like tha man is going to step down. So hopefully bloodshed can be avoided here

[Grig]

This no-fly zone is outrageous. Firstly, when can the west finally just learn to stop being mediators in other places. Secondly, why be so selective- it is not happening only in Libya but other parts of the Middle-East as well. I also love how no one wanted to take the longer term blame so put it all on NATO. Especially the French annoy me, they started doing it even before it was approved. Where's the rush, more oil?!

If they wanted to help the rebels, there are so many other ways in doing so than implementing this.

[StefanWolves]

The frenh have really annoyed me regarding this. Sarkozy is a disgusting man and he is goin to be thrown out in their next election, and this was a last gasp 'oh look at me our armed forxes owned Libya and we saves 1000000000 lives ploy. He wanted to make out that the French were 'leading the way' when in reality they werent. It was the US and UK.
This no-fly zone is outrageous. Firstly, when can the west finally just learn to stop being mediators in other places. Secondly, why be so selective- it is not happening only in Libya but other parts of the Middle-East as well. I also love how no one wanted to take the longer term blame so put it all on NATO. Especially the French annoy me, they started doing it even before it was approved. Where's the rush, more oil?!

If they wanted to help the rebels, there are so many other ways in doing so than implementing this.