West to use possible military action against Gaddafi

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sh-troops.html

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

Gaddafi and the supposed saint of freedom, Antony Blair (also Middle East Peace Envoy, doing a good job isn't he?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Tim, Sydney, Ex UK

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

Thoughts?

[Niall!]

God dammit Cameron is all I can say.

[Marbian]

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

[FlyingJesus]

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

[Marbian]

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

[Moh]

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

[Nemo]

Hopefully just a threat more than anything

[The Don]

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

[Conservative,]

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

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

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you planning to sign up anytime soon?

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

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