Why are we getting involved in Libya?

[Moraystag]

Might be something to do with the fact, that he ordered the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and subsequent killing of 243 passengers+16 crew and 11 Lockerbie residents back on 21st December 1988.
Also he's a tyrant & dictator, and may well be guilty of genocide especially if he's killing his own people as stated by all the UN and adjacent arab nations.
Or maybe he's misunderstood, who knows!!!!!!!!!!

[dasadrew]

Also he's a tyrant & dictator, and may well be guilty of genocide especially if he's killing his own people as stated by all the UN and adjacent arab nations.!!!!!!!!!!

If that's the reason, where was Britain when Rwanda happened then? And where were the UN / NATO for the first year of atrocities in Serbia / Bosnia?

Could it possibly be because Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa?

I might be wrong, of course. It could well be that Britain is there due to the deaths of 11 Lockerbie residents 23 years ago.......

[Guest]

i dont think many people see the wider picture, you have to look at the whole picture.

I doubt that anyone outside government knows remotely what this is.

firstly the last government did leave us practicly broke, they borrowed and borrowed on the back of the economy getting bigger and bigger, they forgot about the bubbles that burst,secondly the defence equipment that has been taken out of service was all due to be decomissioned over the next 5 years, to save money they brought then out early, which then leads to the lack of assetts in such a situat8ion as we are in now. taking the carriers out early was a gamble and it didnt pay off this time b ut thats life.

The first duty of a goverment is to protect its people and, as events have proved, no one can know what is in the future so to effectively disarm is ludicrous. Labour knowingly took us into a number of conflicts, at the same time as deliberately reducing military spending. They wanted us to become a province of Greater Europe and thereby with no need for an effective independant military ability. It wasn't bad luck or "life" - it was pre-planned and bloody shameful.

now the reason for getting involved in libya is many, one being the oil and 2, what you dont need is a power vacuum in libya, this will create an oppurtunity for Iran to spread its influence to the mediteranean,

If you know your history, you will realise that the West - and Britain especially due to our Empire days - has a long history of meddling in the middle east by supporting one faction against another. It has never worked in anything beyond the very short term as the whole Arab world has a massive secular divide and all their wars today are a result of events of 1500 years ago.

by helping install democracy any government that has formed after allied intervention will be obliged (hopefully) to prevent itwe wont need carriers if the enemy is only a hop away from nato bases along the med.

Honestly, you can't be naive enough to think that someone can "install" democracy can you? All that happens in these situations is that one despot is replaced with another and today's "good guy" is tomorrows enemy. The ONLY thing to do is to let them all get on with it and try and make friends with whoever emerges in power.

[Guest]

Might be something to do with the fact, that he ordered the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and subsequent killing of 243 passengers+16 crew and 11 Lockerbie residents back on 21st December 1988.
Also he's a tyrant & dictator, and may well be guilty of genocide especially if he's killing his own people as stated by all the UN and adjacent arab nations.
Or maybe he's misunderstood, who knows!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Mike but I don't think that's it.

It all boils down to oil.

If it were remotely related to genocide then there are plenty of other regimes that should be tackled first. In my list I would have Zimbabwe as what Mugabe has done over recent years is breathtakingly dreadful. As a previosu part of Empire, if there was any sort of morality involved in such decisions, then that's where we should be going.

Why don't we?

Simple.

There is no oil. This means that the Americans would never back us and nor would the toothless UN.

[dasadrew]

Before entertaining any thought of Britain intervening anywhere, one should reflect on the apologetic telephone call from the UK Ambassador to Libya over a non COMSEC line, trying to explain that a helicopter loaded with SAS and MI6 was there to check out if the hotels had running water!

I predict that these air strikes are going to end in complete disaster. None of the people in Africa want the Light Brigade there, despite whatever their profit-hungry princes are saying. Unless Quaddafi capitulates pronto and a rebel alliance is allowed to tear Libya to shreds internally, how is the US/UK/FR + involvement actually going to end?

Still, at least one of the main aims will be fulfilled - that of being able to justify the billions spent on armaments in the aforesaid countries! The problem is that less and less of the voters are swallowing this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFWVoWIumM

[Road Rage]

If you know your history, you will realise that the West - and Britain especially due to our Empire days - has a long history of meddling in the middle east by supporting one faction against another. It has never worked in anything beyond the very short term as the whole Arab world has a massive secular divide and all their wars today are a result of events of 1500 years ago.


Honestly, you can't be naive enough to think that someone can "install" democracy can you? All that happens in these situations is that one despot is replaced with another and today's "good guy" is tomorrows enemy. The ONLY thing to do is to let them all get on with it and try and make friends with whoever emerges in power.

firstly, i know my history more than most, to say i'm naive is the reaction of someone who knows little about history and only sees what they view on sky or read in the sun. africa in general is god-for-saken **** hole as is the middleast, the religion they follow is no different from hitlers ****sm, infact you'll find that their religion is also a political doctorine. but while there is a thread of hope that democrocy can flourish then you have to take the chance. again, your only seeing what there is in front of you, you fail to see the wider picture, yes sub saharan africa has more than its fair share of barbarians but what goes on there dont affect world economies. in a nut shell, we'll all be paying a lot more to fill up the car, and the first people to moan about that will be the ones that question our involvment. and yes we have to deal with the devil sometimes but thats life, middle eastern countries are on the verge of toppling, the west would rather have demoracies to deal with rather than dictators because democracies are more stable. but the muslim brotherhood is stoking up tensions for there own purpose, and those that know their history will know what the muslim brotherhood is about, they are islamists, the last thing europe wants is an islamist regime in the med

[Guest]

I guess we are pretty lucky to have a member who is so well informed on the "wider picture" of the Middle East

[dasadrew]

I guess we are pretty lucky to have a member who is so well informed on the "wider picture" of the Middle East

Indeed!

Anyway, I think it's a good idea when the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is voted in by the people. A shame that Britain doesn't fulfil these criteria!

[singapore stag]

[QUOTE=StagnJag;134153]So why Libya and not Zimbabwe? Mugabe is still in power.[/QUOTE

...and why wasn't Idi Amin tried for HIS crimes?, he died peacefully in his sleep in Saudi Arabia!
Sukh.