Libya No Fly Zone

Given you normally lambust people for quoting the Daily Mail, I am surprised to find you doing so...

Regardless I think most appreciate that deploying British troops would be a significant mistake - it would risk breaking the fragile alliance between rebel factions and repeat the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Elements of the rebels have proven themselves effective fighters and, should they launch an attack against 'invading' British troops, I have no doubt they would quickly rout the peacekeepers. I think this is why Cameron quite rightly said in the event peacekeepers were needed, soldiers from the African Union would be the preferred choice as they would be more acceptable to the Libyan populace. Note also:

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said:
We do not see any circumstances in which British troops would be deployed on the ground in Libya
Very wise.

One should also point out the Daily Mail seems to have missed the fact that those 600 Royal Marines "deployed in the Mediterranean" actually came home last month when HMS ALBION returned home :blush: Only a modest number remain embarked on various RFAs and HMS OCEAN.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...nture/RoyalNavysCougar11DeploymentReturns.htm
 
Last edited:
You can read a huge amount into a 'hmm'. You seem to make a habit of reading whatever you like into a post. I didn't say I belived it. Please show me where I have quoted the DM as you put it.

I also note that with the rebels claiming to hold anything up to 90% of Tripoli other reports have them in retreat.

And this:

1540: Muhammad Gaddafi is one of the sons who was said to have been arrested by the rebels. Later reports said he had escaped.

With the rebels I tend to take the claims and halve them.
 
The rebels are no better than Gaddafi himself. Be proud you have ruined your whole Country for the sake of a hidden agenda that lies deep and these morons are too stupid to understand. Like hell the Americans, UK or any other foreign Country leader really gives a toss about these people. There is something far deeper to this.

IF World leaders were so bothered about civilians then what happened in Zimbabwe would have been addressed but last i checked oil isn't in Zimbanwe. The Middle East will be taken over by the Americans and its muppet friends. Invading every County in the Middle East would be difficult best to start this uprising.
 
There is a comment from the rebel leadership saying the son 'capture' and subsequently appearing on TV was "a bit of an embarrassment". There is a certain element of 'these things happen' in any war - not least one where the central command and control of rebel/free Libyan forces is pretty dubious anyhow. As to the "65,000" loyal Gaddafi troops - I seriously doubt they ever existed in the first place.

There is a good report about the planned future of Libya from the Economist Intelligence Unit. I believe the only nation currently being named as providers to some kind of security/peace keeping force is the UAE. I don't think the NTC want more western involvement as it would degrade their legitimacy in the eyes of the wider Libyan people. I guess there will be a place for British advisors for specific things, but I doubt there will be any significant deployment of British troops - I don't think it would be necessary anyhow. As I guess Sonic probably knows, that Daily Mail article has been written without any real knowledge of quite normal UK procedures with regards to spearhead lead elements, operations to evacuate British nationals from countries, etc, etc.. Lots of speculation from the Mail without much clue what they're talking about (as usual).

I'm quite hopeful for the Libyan future really.. I do think much of the "NATO helping AQ" is nonsense to be honest - the tactics used by the NTC are hardly the MO of AQ. Are there Islamic groups involved? Probably, but that's just the nature of the region. Expecting any governance in that part of the world to not involve Islamist groups is ridiculous.

Regardless, a democracy the people themselves have fought for is likely to be much more valued than one imposed on them such as in Iraq/Afghanistan.

That all said, I don't think Tripoli is as important as they're making out - I think the real fight might be in Sirte.
 
Last edited:
When this is resolved, Nato should withdraw to outer borders maximum. No involvement on the ground. If new Libyan government want to go it alone then let them. Would be ironic if they told BP to get out - and would not surprise me at all
 
When this is resolved, Nato should withdraw to outer borders maximum. No involvement on the ground. If new Libyan government want to go it alone then let them. Would be ironic if they told BP to get out - and would not surprise me at all

And if they asked us to stay to help stabilize Libya in this transitional period? Would there then be a hidden agenda?

Whilst not necessarily aiming this at you one observes that many people's minds are made up before events transpire, no matter what the truth of the situation.
 
Would be ironic if they told BP to get out - and would not surprise me at all

Wasn't giving BP a foothold the reason why we sucked Gadaafi's proverbial in the first place?
I forget, but think it was.

one observes that many people's minds are made up before events transpire, no matter what the truth of the situation.

So you think we got involved just to help the civilians out, Confucious?
I'd suggest that's naive to say the least.
As has been said, why no help in other countries that don't have oil?

Scramble for the oil has started:

Oh yes.
What that'll involve, I don't know, but it's all about the spoils of war after all, isn't it?
A TNC indebted to the West with only approved members being put up for election, same as the toilet (sorry, Karzai) who runs Afghanistan.
All very nice :smashin:
Not that your common man will see anything out of it.

The proposed leader is already doing the round of talks with the western leaders isn't he?
No doubt to do their dirty deals, I suspect.
 
Last edited:
Anyone watching Newsnight? They brought in two "experts" and the bloke basically calling the woman out as useless and ill-informed, not knowing anything at all about the real situation on the ground :laugh:
And if they asked us to stay to help stabilize Libya in this transitional period? Would there then be a hidden agenda?

Whilst not necessarily aiming this at you one observes that many people's minds are made up before events transpire, no matter what the truth of the situation.
My post was an acknowledgement seeing as Nato destroyed many hardware assets, then there is a duty to protect the borders until such time the Libyans are able to do so themselves. Which may be months/years

But given Nato refrained from the use of ground troops to remove the dictatorship, it would be ironic for that option to be on the table if hypothetically the Libyans begin squabbling between themselves too aggressively in the assertion for power. If that happens then frankly the west must reap what they sow and not get involved imo as it will only lead to trouble. Even if democratic elections pass off peacefully, there is the real possibility the new government would have different ideas about existing oil contracts, especially as the signatory was an ousted leader. Maybe I am too cynical to believe the west would stand by and suck that up. Have they in fact already ignored contracts and started dishing out new rights?

Not trying to predict the future, mere speculation on my part. But would argue it is valid speculation :D
 
Last edited:
Have they in fact already ignored contracts and started dishing out new rights?

You can bet your boots on it.
But it would seem I'm overly cynical too :)
 
Even if democratic elections pass off peacefully, there is the real possibility the new government would have different ideas about existing oil contracts, especially as the signatory was an ousted leader. Maybe I am too cynical to believe the west would stand by and suck that up. Have they in fact already ignored contracts and started dishing out new rights?
There was an interesting discussion about this on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4 a night or two ago. Apparantly it is quite likely oil contracts will remain 'as is' for the next couple of years for a whole host of reasons.

First and foremost because many of the oil refineries have been sat unused for several months and because Libyan oil is high quality (and thus "waxy"), it will require some quite expert maintanence to get the equipment running again. Realistically this will require the companies who own, and thus have the expertise in, the equipment.

Secondly the new Libyan Government will be keen to get the oil flowing ASAP - in doing so they ensure an income which will be worth significantly more than international aid and can be spent without any constraints. Again this can be done most effectively using the exisiting contracts.

Personally I suspect the latter will be the biggest driver.
 
I have to admit I find the "it's all about oil" argument very depressing. It is an 'X Files culture' - there must be a conspiracy. For Libya how many countries voted for UN Resultions 1970 (Blockade) and 1973 (No Fly Zone)? Out of the 15 members of the Security Council none voted against, only five abstained (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation) whilst 10 voted for (Bosnia, China, Columbo, France, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, UK, USA). Out of those who voted for, only four (China, France, UK and USA) had/has significant oil interests in the country.

Are there international benefits in a stable Libya? Yes of course... But it is not just about oil. It is about preventing a mass migration of people that distablises other areas. It is about preventing a breeding ground for international terrorism. It is about providing markets for goods and Services (both import and exports). It is about ensuring a nation governed by the rule of law. And, regardless of the cynics, it is also about wanting to prevent human suffering.

IF World leaders were so bothered about civilians then what happened in Zimbabwe would have been addressed but last i checked oil isn't in Zimbanwe.
I think this is both an unfair and simplistic assessment. Zimbabwe was, and remains, a huge human tragedy - but intervention was never really possible. First and foremost action aganst Zimbabwe could have caused the entire Southern African continent to erupt into violence - nobody would want to see South Africa fall into the same abyss. Secondly, as a land locked country, it would be difficult and hugely expensive to take any military action there. Look at how much Afghanistan costs to maintain our Forces - and that is only possible with extensive host nation support provided by Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, Russia and some of the 'stans' to the North.

So all in all I think it is very wrong to dismiss inventions such as Libya as solely about ulterior financial motives. Embroiling the UN in situations where, due to a mix of international politics, military logistics and religion/race issues, it is impotent to act (Yemen, Zimbabwe, maybe Syria etc) would be pointless and would have been a huge own goal as the UN's reputation would suffer giving encoruagement to dictators and estremists everywhere. Whereas engagement in Libya did have a broad consensus and was possible. Big steps and little ones...
 
Last edited:
I get a little irritated about the "we shouldn't get involve in X, we didn't get involved in Y!" argument from people who, by and large, think that any military intervention is wrong. These are generally also people who shout the loudest about countries abusing human rights, allowing their people to starve because of terrible governance. Knowing fully well they'd complain if we had the ability and desire to intervene everywhere, I'm not quite sure what they would like to do about these regimes they dislike so much. Write them a strongly worded letter?

The other group of non-interventionists tend to be those who bemoan that "we have enough problems in our country" who I can only assume have never travelled outside a first world country or tourist area, and have absolutely no concept how damn lucky they are to live in the UK.

The oil argument is a bit hollow as well - most large oil companies are largely western controlled, and besides, it's a global commodity, so the threat is from increased use, not who pulls it out of the ground.
 
Jack Straw was on Radio 5 live yesterday morning. He said one of the benefits of a stable Libya was there would be cheaper oil. The first caller on pointed out most of the oil cost at the pump is tax anyway.
 
I get a little irritated about the "we shouldn't get involve in X, we didn't get involved in Y!" argument from people who, by and large, think that any military intervention is wrong. These are generally also people who shout the loudest about countries abusing human rights, allowing their people to starve because of terrible governance. Knowing fully well they'd complain if we had the ability and desire to intervene everywhere, I'm not quite sure what they would like to do about these regimes they dislike so much. Write them a strongly worded letter?

The other group of non-interventionists tend to be those who bemoan that "we have enough problems in our country" who I can only assume have never travelled outside a first world country or tourist area, and have absolutely no concept how damn lucky they are to live in the UK.

The oil argument is a bit hollow as well - most large oil companies are largely western controlled, and besides, it's a global commodity, so the threat is from increased use, not who pulls it out of the ground.


For me consistency of action is the problem - why Libya and not Bahrain or Syria..? Why is Mugabe allowed to ruin Zimbabwe's economy and stifle democracy when the dictator who brought literacy to the majority of his states population and gave unprecedented freedoms to women in the Arab world gets bombed into 'retirement.' And for all of these examples the world stands by whilst Israel bombs the most population dense area of the planet, sends commandos on to Turkish ships in international waters, continues to steal land in-spite of numerous UN mandate and passes its secret service assassins off as UK citizens..?
I think its all fine and dandy to intervene to preserve the lives of innocent populations, funny how our governments are blind to most examples but are prepared to use it as an excuse to promote 'regime change' when it suits their political requirements. Hypocrisy...!
 
I think its all fine and dandy to intervene to preserve the lives of innocent populations, funny how our governments are blind to most examples but are prepared to use it as an excuse to promote 'regime change' when it suits their political requirements. Hypocrisy...!
It isn't hypocrisy - it is acceptance of geo-political and military reality.
 
It isn't hypocrisy - it is acceptance of geo-political and military reality.

So, if , lets say, China intervened in , lets say, Taiwan or Singapore to pursue its own valid geopolitical wishes how exactly would we in the west respond..?
 
So, if , lets say, China intervened in , lets say, Taiwan or Singapore to pursue its own valid geopolitical wishes how exactly would we in the west respond..?
I suspect in a similar manner as the West responded when Russia invaded Georgia - by using diplomatic levers.

But just because you can't stop a Superpower doing something (or even small regional players like Iran and Syria) that does not mean we should do nothing ever.
 
Last edited:
I get a little irritated about the "we shouldn't get involve in X, we didn't get involved in Y!" argument from people who, by and large, think that any military intervention is wrong.
Context is everything. Military intervention was justified way before 1939 instead of allowing the Nazi party to build up militarily for nefarious aims. How many people will you find who disagree with Britain intervening when Argentina became pro-active over the Falklands? The west failed Rwanda. Until the British intervention, the west also failed Sierra Leone.

No, lazily tarring people with one brush is precisely that. No-one denies Gaddafi will win humanitarian of the year any time soon but there is suffering all over the world.
It isn't hypocrisy - it is acceptance of geo-political and military reality.
Which is still hypocrisy no matter how eloquently you dress it up. Maintain that the Libyan situation is not the same as the above examples because Gaddafi was ostensibly ridding of armed rebels. Over the decades the ex-leader has been accused of many crimes which the west have stood by. It was opportunistic riding of a wave that had swept through Tunisia and Egypt. By the standards that saw air support in Libya, arguably the same logic should apply to Syria. Words calling for the president to resign are nothing more than that. Are the Syrian protesters not as entitled as the Libyan people?

A little consistency in applying moral duties, a little less opportunism and then refraining from nonsensically having a go at people for daring to point out the hypocrisy goes a long way
 
A little consistency in applying moral duties, a little less opportunism and then refraining from nonsensically having a go at people for daring to point out the hypocrisy goes a long way
We'll have to agree to disagree Steven. IMHO to reach the conclusion that accepting there is no difference between intervention that is viable and that which is not, is a pure fantasy devoid of serious consideration.
 
Last edited:
I suspect in a similar manner as the West responded when Russia invaded Georgia - by using diplomatic levers.

But just because you can't stop a Superpower doing something (or even small regional players like Iran and Syria) that does not mean we should do nothing ever.

Exactly..............only when it suits us ............and you can't see the hypocricy in this..?
 
We'll have to agree to disagree Steven. IMHO to reach the conclusion that accepting there is no difference between intervention that is viable and that which is not, is a pure fantasy devoid of serious consideration.
Yes there is a difference dependent on the context but if the west support Libyan rebels then why the past and continued failures on the continent? The west colonised Africa and divided it up between themselves. Despite leaving decades ago, the west left behind many fragmentations. Look at Somalia today which arguably is another stain on the weak UN

Which is of course incomparable to the hypothetical if say in 2025 China decided to launch their new stealth plane across the Taiwan Strait
 
Exactly..............only when it suits us ............and you can't see the hypocricy in this..?
If this country went to war with China we would lose everything. Our military would be annihilated, our economy would be smashed, our future trading prospects would be decimated. We would have no chance whatsoever. So how can it be possibly be seen as a "when it suits us" example? Real people and real societies cannot live and operate as you suggest, then I think it is quite right to say it is not hypocricy.

Steven said:
Look at Somalia today which arguably is another stain on the weak UN
Britain already contributes extensively to NATO's OCEAN SHIELD which is at least partially focused on stability in Somalia (through suppression of piracy). As for further military action it is just not viable unless you wanted to conduct a full invasion which we simply do not have the resources for. As the US found, a commitment in Somalia would need to be extensive - and so it is a question of balancing resources. We cannot do everything. That is no excuse to do nothing, nor is it "hypocrisy".
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom