Sonic67
Ex Member
Last edited:
I've noticed the rebels tend to come out with anything.
Given you normally lambust people for quoting the Daily Mail, I am surprised to find you doing so...
Very wise.International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said:We do not see any circumstances in which British troops would be deployed on the ground in Libya
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
Would be ironic if they told BP to get out - and would not surprise me at all
one observes that many people's minds are made up before events transpire, no matter what the truth of the situation.
Scramble for the oil has started:
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/yearsAnd 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.
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.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?
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.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 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.
It isn't hypocrisy - it is acceptance of geo-political and military reality.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.
I suspect in a similar manner as the West responded when Russia invaded Georgia - by using diplomatic levers.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..?
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.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.
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?It isn't hypocrisy - it is acceptance of geo-political and military reality.
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.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
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.
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 UNWe'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.
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.Exactly..............only when it suits us ............and you can't see the hypocricy in this..?
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".Steven said:Look at Somalia today which arguably is another stain on the weak UN