[Closed] Libya no-fly zone, for or against?

Against.

There are a number of reasons discussed in length here:

[url= http://www.septicisle.info/index.php?q=/2011/03/giant-leap-into-dark.html ]A Giant Leap into the Dark[/url]

One main point for me is that we don't know who we're dealing with, as Septicisle says in the article linked

What began, like in Tunisia and Egypt as leaderless, classless uprising against a loathed regime has since then been changed by necessity into something quite different: an uprising spearheaded by two former senior officials in the government, neither of whom should normally be trusted as far as they can be thrown. As incredible it seems, it was less than two weeks ago that we were so cautious about the likes of Mustafa Abdul Jalil and Abdul Fatah Younis that we were sending in spooks masquerading as diplomats protected by the SAS in a bid to make first contact proper with them. Now we've agreed to intervene militarily on their side. If this worries our political leaders, then they haven't shown any sign of it.

[url= http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_6_76/ai_n29096537/ ]Deja vu, anyone?[/url]

Define a sovereign nation. You could pack lots of European countries into Libya. Gaddafi probably controls a similar territory to Napoleon before he was kicked out. Why should "tribes" respect those straight lines on the map?

Presently against if the UN started taking sides. For if they are purely there to protect civillians - not sure how this could be compared to Libya and NI.

Col Gaddafi has promised to retake Benghazi, saying his forces would show "no mercy".

Gosh, The leader of fighting forces about to embark on a decisive battle talks fighting-talk .........whatever next.

Gaddafi has also offered an amnesty to rebels in Benghazi if they lay down their arms, scaring them increases the chances of that be successful.

One of the reasons why Gaddafi's forces have been so successful as they have swept through Libya, appears to be precisely because if rebels give themselves up they generally get to live - therefore many have surrendered without a fight.

I wouldn't say that surrendering will automatically mean you will live of course - war isn't like that. In Benghazi the rebels murdered over 200 Gaddafi supporters after taking control. Although I'm sure you haven't heard of that, or that you are prepared to believe that both sides are capable of that sort of stuff.

So, Edukator, you're entirely confident that two men involved with Gadaffi's Administration at the highest levels have suddenly embraced the idea of democracy?

You could pack lots of European countries into Libya

There are only about 6 million people in Libya and the vast majority of their country is desert. Most of the population is concentrated into 3 cities on the coast. It is hardly the French Empire under Napoleon now is it?

It's not often I find myself concurring with Tandem Jeremy (albeit for different reasons). 😆

Its one big game of realpolitik being played out in front of us.

As far as the US is concerned the main threat in the region is Iran.

The US's major ally in the Gulf - Saudi Arabia is worried about possible Iranian influences in the uprising in Bahrain so will be looking to help crush it. By tacitly supporting action against Libya, Saudi Arabia will be looking for the US to look the other way when it puts down the uprising in Bahrain.

The US who who will be looking to keep their pet despots in Saudi and Bahrain happy and also limit any Iranian influence in that part of the Gulf will probably complain a bit and call for "restraint" and let the Bahrain uprising be put down.

Meanwhile Gaddafi will be ousted, probably going into exile and a friendly "democratic" regime supported by the US can be installed in Libya

I think it's interesting Lebanon helped draft the plan. Perhaps they've got someone in mind when they voted on:

*Authorises member states to "take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack"

BTW, if the dickhead who put the "Ernie loves Gaddafi" tag wants to argue his point with me, I'm happy to listen to his thoughtful views on the matter.

It's ok Ernie, I posted a new one to balance it out.

Thanks clubber but I'm fine with it......I just wondered whether they wanted to back up that claim with something a tad more substantial. But I guess the limitations placed on an intellectually challenged halfwit suggests that maybe not.

I like "Colonel Ernie" btw, whoever done that......at least now they're getting fairly comical 8)

LOL @ the tags - Ernie, where shall we go for our date? Or shall we skip that and just sh@g?

I wouldn't say that surrendering will automatically mean you will live of course - war isn't like that. In Benghazi the rebels murdered over 200 Gaddafi supporters after taking control. Although I'm sure you haven't heard of that, or that you are prepared to believe that both sides are capable of that sort of stuff.

Source?

Well Mr Cameron, what first interested you in supporting the people of the oil rich state Libya?

Personally would have been for, but now it's probably too late for it to achieve enough to justify the risks. Decision making by delay.

Torminalis - Member

Leave 'em to it I say, what right does any country have to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

Interesting question... First of all you have to consider whether the leadership is legitimate (no) and whether being a sovereign nation gives you the right to do whatever you want within your borders (no). After that, it's just a matter of degrees.

Spongebob - Member

We have no business interfering with this civil conflict!

The hardware being used wasn't made in Libya, so you could already say we (rest of world) interfered, by creating the current imbalance of power.

Considering that we always appear to be flogging warplanes to the arab league, you'd think they'd be 1st up to see if their toys work properly.
Surely it would make much more sense to get them to do all the flying, and then after some suitable bribes we could flog em some upgrades.

First of all you have to consider whether the leadership is legitimate (no)

Just because Gaddafi is not a democratically elected leader does not make him any less legitimate. It may fdo in your eyes but that means eff all in the grand scheme of things. He was the head of a popular revolution, has the support of the largest groups of tribes in the country and has been in the same position for 42 years. Certainly no one else who can claim more legitimacy as their leader, least of all us and our god given right to intervene when we choose. Where were we when Mugabe was bulldozing the opposition?

whether being a sovereign nation gives you the right to do whatever you want within your borders (no).

Errr, yeah it does. Do we have a world government? Nope. Who should hold him accountable? The UN, get real! Wasn't so long ago that the UN were lifting sanctions and allowing the likes of us to arm Gaddafi, I would be interested to hear all about this moral authority you allude to.

1238: Libya's Foreign Minister says his country is committed to accept the UN Security Council resolution, and so has decided an immediate ceasefire and the stopping of all military operations.

Seems to have done the trick.

seems gaddafi thought it was a bad idea for him .

He heard a Merlin engine...

Torminalis someone had a revolution and remains in control 42 years later you do know what a dictatorship is dont you?

What are you on about with your post that's sixth on the page, Lifer? I'm used to being misquoted on this forum but there I really haven't got a clue what you're on about.

My prediction the previous page about Gaddafi backing off in order to hold on to what power he has seems to have been right though.

Torminalis - Member

Certainly no one else who can claim more legitimacy as their leader

Genius. So he becomes legitimate because he's destroyed the opposition using executions, assasination and imprisonment.

Torminalis someone had a revolution and remains in control 42 years later you do know what a dictatorship is dont you?

A dictatorship, whilst undesirable to us morally superior westerners, is still a legitimate form of government.

I think you are somewhat missing the point, we have no moral authority to determine how another country governs itself. Why did we not all barge into Thailand during the uprising a couple of years ago? Why do we sponsor the ****stani military dictatorship? What about Mugabe who we left to systematically torture and abuse the opposition? China? Russia? Egypt? So many more...

Selective intervention with our own best interests in mind has been shown to morally fail more often than not. I can't think of one intervention we have made where our troops ever got to leave? Can you?

Genius. So he becomes legitimate because he's destroyed the opposition using executions, assasination and imprisonment.

Yes, that's exactly the case. Might has always won, even if it is not right. Your desire to set our weapons against the government of Libya is no more morally justified than Gaddafi's desire to set his weapons against the people he sees as opposing his rule and his sense of what is right. There is no moral absolute, despite what you feel in your heart to be right.

In this instance, I think that we have had distorted media coverage to justify the deployment of our forces into yet another oil rich area with a leader that won't always tow our line, in an region that has implications far beyond the borders of the country in question. Or should we just take over the whole world so that they all have to do exactly as we say?

I hope I never wake up and find I think like you.

"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is
weak."
"If the enemy is in superior strength, evade him."
(Sun Tzu Art of War)

Gadaffi is just playing the game and picking his battles.
The right to protect civilians should stretch beyond the right to protect sovereignty.

Ideally, the right to protect civilians should stretch beyond the right of sovereignty.

I agree.

I hope I never wake up and find I think like you.

If you did, you might see through many of the potential pitfalls in trying to implement the above.

I take the ceasefire with a massive dose of salt. It just buys him time, the 'allies' can't take out his SAM sites now and I wouldn't expect them to exactly be rushing the required logistical support now either. In the meantime he just regroups his forces for a final push on Bengahzi and by the time the world notices he's broken the ceasefire it will all be over.

A dictatorship, whilst undesirable to us morally superior westerners, is still a legitimate form of government

Edukator - Member
What are you on about with your post that's sixth on the page, Lifer? I'm used to being misquoted on this forum but there I really haven't got a clue what you're on about.

Wasn't quoting you was asking a question. If Gadaffi is removed who's going to replace him? Especially with Cameron 'considering' arming the rebels, any intervention on one side or another we should be sure of their intentions. Abdul Fatah Younis (ex minister of the interior/general and now leader of the rebel armed forces) was considered Gadaffi's number 2, for example.

I am sure you can see the distinction.

I do see the distinction and I personally find it abhorrent that any leader would use force against large groups of their own population (or small groups for that matter).

it is not automatically wrong because it is ours is it?

We are one of 86 countries in the world considered to be 'free'. 114 are not. We actually seem to be in the minority of countries that believe the freedom of the individual trumps the states right do as they choose. Not saying it is right, but I certainly don't think it is as clear cut as saying that we have a duty to intervene.

If Gadaffi is removed who's going to replace him? ....... Abdul Fatah Younis (ex minister of the interior/general and now leader of the rebel armed forces) was considered Gadaffi's number 2, for example.

Firstly if Gadaffi is "removed" it won't be the end of the fighting imo. Recent events have shown that he still has huge support in much of Libya and I would be surprised if Tripoli readily accepts rule from Benghazi. There is nothing to suggest that Libya wouldn't be gripped into an endless civil war.

But maybe not .... who knows ? If a "Gadaffi free" Libya or part of Libya is established, it is of course quite possible that figures associated with the old regime will lose their influence. Who would replace them ? Well that again is pure speculation. Which probably helps to at least partly explain, why the US until a day or two ago, was so reluctant to intervene.

I reckon this geezer at least stands a chance though :

[img] [/img]

Abu Yahya al-Libi ......one of the most high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders in the world, a Libyan, and the leader of the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group ]Libyan Islamic Fighting Group[/url]

Whilst Gadaffi mercilessly clamped down on al-Qaeda activities in Libya and he was hugely successful in doing so - leaving them with very little influence and little power base in Libya, the situation has now changed.

I have no idea how successful al-Qaeda has been in re-organising itself in the parts of Libya that Gadaffi has lost control, and I don't suppose Western intelligence has either. The recent complete cock-up by British intelligence shows just how confused the situation is. But there is no doubt that al-Qaeda is actively exploiting the situation.

[url= http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201103131956-cro-ren1084-libya_al_qaeda_calls_on_rebels_to_strive_against_gaddafi ]LIBYA: AL QAEDA CALLS ON REBELS TO STRIVE AGAINST GADDAFI[/url]

Speculating what will happen in Libya amounts to no more than crystal ball gazing....no one knows. But history has shown us that the West tends to get things terribly wrong on such matters. Wishful thinking is not enough.

When we shoot down all the Libyan jets, blow up all their AA sites, destroy all their radar... there'll be a very nice sales opportunity once it all settles down again.

I'm all for it. Arms are one of our few exports.

I'm all for it. Arms are one of our few exports.

Subsidised by us!

Who would replace them ? Well that again is pure speculation.

Allow me to speculate. I'm totally unconvinced that the UN would be issuing resoloutions that would, by design, put someone in power that was too radically opposed to the western discourse.

Of course, by allowing a war to be waged against Lybia could always be the catalyst for inspiring a movement radically opposed to the western discourse.

You think the security services of UN member states have sound and reliable information on the matter trailmonkey ?

British intelligence is probably one of the most established and reliable in that part of the world :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8367824/Libya-MI6-officer-seized-in-SAS-mission-fiasco-was-carrying-letter-signed-by-David-Cameron.html ]Libya: MI6 officer seized in SAS mission fiasco[/url]

And we won't mention western intelligence catastrophic failures in pre-revolution Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Definitely for.

Gadaffi is using superior military hardware against civilians and a band of democracy-seeking rebels. We have a moral duty to intervene - we'll deal with the issue of setting a precedent later.

The fact that we (the West) have supported or supplied him in the past does not change the fact that he and his regime are murderous suppressors of democracy. Our past behaviour is our own problem, not the people of Libya's.

I'm delighted to see the UN take this stance - even if it is about 5 days late.

You think the security services of UN member states have sound and reliable information on the matter trailmonkey ?

Well, surely you've got to assume that if we're going ahead with the no fly zone, after the fiasco in your link, then the UK govt. are still sure that an opposition govt. in Lybia is likely to be one that they're happy with. Surely they're not that stupid ?

Ok, maybe they are.

You are suggesting some clear coherent strategic thinking on the part of the Western powers trailmonkey. And yet there isn't a lot of evidence to support that.

Only a couple of days or so ago the US was opposed to a no-fly zone over Libya, why ? The situation was no less critical then. US policy for the region has for last couple of months, been remarkably inconsistent - zig-zagging all over the place.

The US was much criticised for sending mixed messages and being inconsistent during the crises in Egypt. Some of it is simply a characteristic of the Obama administration, which publicly says it is supporting one side, whilst privately supporting the other side. That strategy was remarkably effective in Honduras where the Obama administration had a highly successful coup. But much of it was simply because they were not fully in control of the situation and didn't know what to do next.

The situation in the middle east and North Africa is out of control. Neither the West, the autocratic rulers, nor the demonstrators, have a clear plan and know what's going to happen next. All are reacting to events and are making decisions on a day to day basis. All will make mistakes.

Because of the terms of the no-fly zone it will not have a huge implication on the outcome of the current struggles in Libya. At least it won't be the decisive issue, other than it will probably stop Tripoli from gaining control of the whole country. It will not guarantee that the rebels will be successful in forming a government in Tripoli - despite the propaganda their support isn't that extensive. What it will probably guarantee though, is a stalemate and that the war will continue.

The purpose of the no-fly zone is not actually that apparent imo. It certainly isn't about saving lives though. Although the casualties figures to date are completely unknown, they are almost certainly not what rebel and western propaganda would like you to believe. There is no evidence that Libyan forces are deliberately targeting civilians other than rebel fighters.

Humanitarian agencies in one report claims the figure to be between 1000 and 200 dead :

[i]"Since protesters began rallying against Gadhafi's regime in mid-February, Libya has slipped into civil war, humanitarian organizations said. Heavily armed pro-Gadhafi forces have attacked rebel strongholds on land and by air. Rights organizations estimate 1,000 to 2,000 people have died."[/i]

[url= http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/17/Ex-British-air-force-head-wary-of-strikes/UPI-87601300379675/ ]Ex-British air force head wary of strikes[/url]

If those figures are correct, it is remarkably low considering the situation and it suggests a "killing rate" lower than Egypt's during their troubles. Bombing by the US will dramatically increase death - not reduce it, it's not about saving lives.

So the reason for the no-fly zone is debatable imo. Although I suspect that the Arab League was probably motivated in part at least, in calling for a no-fly zone as a way of drawing the US into a regional conflict. The autocratic rulers who make up the heads of states of Arab League countries have always relied in the United states to keep them in power. Right now, they are all being threaten. Right now they need the US.

Note that today Saudi Arabia which was the Arab League that most pushed most for a no-fly zone, has announced that it will not take part in its implementation.

[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-arabs-idUSTRE72H48R20110318?pageNumber=2 ]Arabs not eager to join military action in Libya[/url]

So it well be left to the US then. Handy for the Saudis.

Note too, that whilst the situation in Bahrain is highly critical and paid foreign mercenaries are being used by the government to suppress the opposition, the US is not calling for an immediate cessation of repressive operations. Hilary Clinton has merely urged "restraint on all sides".

'Restraint on all sides' suggests that the opposition is as guilty as the government - a ludicrous proposition. The US, if it wanted to, could pull the plug on the tyrannical regime in Bahrain instantly. The US has far more influence on events in Bahrain than it has in Libya. And yet it does nothing.

[img] [/img]

How dare they trying to intervene in Dear Leader's world.

😈

ernie_lynch - Member

[i]How would you resolve this?[/i]

Well it would have resolved itself in the next couple of days without interference. The UN sanctioned interference will now guarantee that it will not be resolved.

so sitting on the fence is a strategy, are you a civil servant?

Gaddafi has also offered an amnesty to rebels in Benghazi if they lay down their arms, scaring them increases the chances of that be successful.

One of the reasons why Gaddafi's forces have been so successful as they have swept through Libya, appears to be precisely because if rebels give themselves up they generally get to live - therefore many have surrendered without a fight.

history in the country shows that violent consequences always follow, remember revenge is a dish best served cold and not on 24hr rolling news channels, our dear leader certainly knows this

Recent events have shown that he still has huge support in much of Libya

I would be surprised if Tripoli readily accepts rule from Benghazi.

I have no idea how successful al-Qaeda has been in re-organising itself in the parts of Libya that Gadaffi has lost control, and I don't suppose Western intelligence has either.

Speculating what will happen in Libya amounts to no more than crystal ball gazing....no one knows. But history has shown us that the West tends to get things terribly wrong on such matters. Wishful thinking is not enough.

Thank you for your point by point rebuttal of my post Big and Daft. Your diligent attention to detail is impressive. And don't I look silly now.

So it well be left to the US then. Handy for the Saudis.

Note too, that whilst the situation in Bahrain is highly critical and paid foreign mercenaries are being used by the government to suppress the opposition, the US is not calling for an immediate cessation of repressive operations. Hilary Clinton has merely urged "restraint on all sides".

'Restraint on all sides' suggests that the opposition is as guilty as the government - a ludicrous proposition. The US, if it wanted to, could pull the plug on the tyrannical regime in Bahrain instantly. The [b]US has far more influence on events in Bahrain than it has in Libya. And yet it does nothing[/b].

did they forget to copy you in on the strategy email and the conversations behind closed doors? not again surely? don't they know it would stop cockups happening if they asked you first? quick someone let Obama know Ernies not in the loop! 😉

Your diligent attention to detail is impressive

I am not in your league of googling/ wikipedia searching, think pub team to your premiership level pedantry 😉

This thread is fascinating!

People on this forum I thought of as pains in the backside are coming across quite credulous.

Where-as others I thought were 'alright' are coming across as Media believing fools.

Why has there been no UN intervention in countries where this 'supposedly' killing of civilians has been reported.

I'll ****in tell ye, "It is because they countries are too powerful, or have limited/little resources"

I am no media believing fool ... 😡

Fact. Everyone loves Dear Leader. Fact.

If you do not love Dear Leader you are a fool. Fool.

😈

Tiananmen Square?
Fool?

Well that's the first plane downed over a civilian area. Pictures are quite dramatic. Lets hope it didn't land on any occupied buildings.
(I'm assuming its a Libyan plane!!)

Just seen a Libyan "Government" (ie: Colonel Gadfly mouthpiece) spokesman saying "There is no attack on Benghazi" just as there are pictures of, yes, an attack on Benghazi.

Anybody remember "Comical Ali"? "We are slaughtering the Americans before the gates of Baghdad"! as right behind him - ooh look! - American troops and tanks advanced into the city.

Of course, this is all manipulation by the eviil Western media against the Dear Kind Leader. Isn't it.

Pfft. Hitler was a very nice man too, according to some here in the thirties...

It seems their descendants are active.

[img] [/img]

Mr Woppit - Member

Just seen a Libyan "Government" (ie: Colonel Gadfly mouthpiece) spokesman saying "There is no attack on Benghazi" just as there are pictures of, yes, an attack on Benghazi.

Anybody remember "Comical Ali"? "We are slaughtering the Americans before the gates of Baghdad"! as right behind him - ooh look! - American troops and tanks advanced into the city.

Of course, this is all manipulation by the eviil Western media against the Dear Kind Leader. Isn't it.

Pfft. Hitler was a very nice man too, according to some here in the thirties...

It seems their descendants are active.

You have a very selective memory Woppit. The rebels have been feeding the western media an endless stream of lies.

Firstly the rebels claimed that Gaddafi's army was refusing to fight and that he was having to rely on paid foreign mercenaries. The western media dutifully reported this in all their news bulletins. The rebels claimed that these african mercenaries could be identified by there dark skin and that they had captured several, again the western media dutifully reported this.

It was however a lie. Gaddafi's army is not refusing to fight, there are no foreign mercenaries, the rebels haven't captured any, and none have been presented to the media. The western media has very quietly completely dropped the allegation without bothering to admit that it was false.

The rebels claimed that Tripoli was gripped by anti-Gaddafi demonstrations, and yet despite the western media being in Tripoli, there is no evidence if any serious disturbances, and no evidence of the army being deployed in Tripoli at all.......it was a lie.

The rebels claimed that government war planes were relentlessly targeting civilians, and yet despite the presence of the western media in rebel controlled areas, not one single example of an air strike which has resulted in the substantial loss of civilian lives has been reported....it is a lie.

The rebels consistently claimed that they had either repelled attacks by Gaddafi forces, or recaptured towns which they had previously controlled. And yet they were in fact consistently losing ground......it was a lie.

The rebels are every bit as capable of telling lies as the Libyan government after all, the truth is always the first casualty of any war.

And yet you conveniently choose to believe the obvious lies told by the rebels, whilst rejecting the obvious lies told by Gaddafi's government. Why ? ......does deluding yourself that the rebels are incapable of telling lies somehow make you feel more comfortable ?

Is wading through the bullshit and looking at the situation from a realistic perspective too much like hard work for you ? You might well ridicule with references to "Comical Ali" Woppit, but it is you that's coming across as gullible imo. I don't pretend to know everything that is happening in Libya - no one can know that, but I am certainly not going to believe everything that one side tells me.

no UN intervention in countries where this 'supposedly' killing of civilians has been reported

If countries acted on the law past precedence - your argument would be simply brilliant. The reality is they don't - which means your argument is actually very sh*t.

And having red all of Ernie's previous postings I can only imagine his whole life is governed by the apathy and fear of doing something rather than the fear of doing nothing. Man would be rubbing sticks to make fire if we evolved our thinking like this.

so sitting on the fence is a strategy

And having red all of Ernie's previous postings I can only imagine his whole life is governed by the apathy and fear of doing something rather than the fear of doing nothing

So are we enforcing action in Yemen where a rebellion is being put down ruthlessly? Bahrain?

steffybhoy - Member

Tiananmen Square?
Fool?

Yes, how dare they protest against the power of the Dear Leaders with foreign influence.

having red all of Ernie's previous postings

I'm impressed with your commitment mudsux ....I don't expect anyone to do that. Although I have to confess that I find you conclusion rather bizarre ......I've never been called a conservative who was happy with the status quo before.

And thanks for the supportive words Junkyard, I shall indeed be leafleting in an hour or so time, to publicise next Saturday's demonstration against government policies.

So if anyone is in Croydon and wants to join us, we will be outside the Whitgift Centre (High Street side) from 12.30 pm. I'll be happy to chat about Libya and the current situation btw.

[img] [/img]
Ist fighter shot down over bengazi [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589[/url]

I shall indeed be leafleting in an hour or so time, to publicise next Saturday's demonstration against government policies.

In relation to Lybia or just their current ideological policies at home ?

Just interested and pleased to hear that someone somewhere is being proactive should it be the latter.

oh very funny,though I fear i may be crediting you with more intelligence than your posting suggest

http://marchforthealternative.org.uk/

will we see you there?

there are no foreign mercenaries,

hope you passed that analysis to MI6, might stop another farce! 😉

The rebels claimed that government war planes were relentlessly targeting civilians, and yet despite the presence of the western media in rebel controlled areas,

[b]not one single example[/b] of an air strike which has resulted in the substantial loss of civilian lives has been reported....it is a lie.

Tripoli was gripped by anti-Gaddafi demonstrations, and yet despite the western media being in Tripoli, there is no evidence if any serious disturbances, and no evidence of the army being deployed in Tripoli at all.......it was a lie

The rebels consistently claimed that they had either repelled attacks by Gaddafi forces, or recaptured towns which they had previously controlled. And yet they were in fact consistently losing ground......it was a lie.

[b]I don't pretend to know everything that is happening in Libya - no one can know that[/b]

The western media has very quietly completely dropped the allegation without bothering to admit that it was false

in Tripoli at all.......it was a lie.

been reported....it is a lie

losing ground......it was a lie.

lots of "fact" debunking for someone who doesn't know whats going on

anyway I hope that your hotline to the FO and the White House has been installed so they can get your credible factual assessment of the situation 😉

The French are dropping ordnance, now.

Ist fighter shot down over bengazi
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589

looks air to air, it was high for shoulder lauched missiles and there wasn't intense ground fire

Enjoy the leafletting, ernie. Rest assured that our wicked, lying, manipulative government won't be locking you up and torturing you and your relatives to death for disagreeing with it.

oh very funny,though I fear i may be crediting you with more intelligence than your posting suggest

❓

WTF

Big and Daft - thanks once again for having gone through my post and demolishing my argue point by point. As I have already previously stated, your attention to detail to my posts is both impressive and touching - I feel humbled ........ no really, I don't deserve so much attention.

Just one thing though........I know you claim to be daft, but surely you can tell the difference between me saying [i]"I don't pretend to know everything that is happening in Libya - no one can know that"[/i] and me claiming to know nothing ?

I am of course referring to this comment :

big_n_daft - Member

lots of "fact" debunking for someone who doesn't know whats going on

Working on the premise that no one is that daft, I have assumed that you are merely twisting what I have said to satisfy your puerile desire to "point score", as you seek to comprise your inability to provide an intelligent and reasoned argument by reducing everything to the level of playground taunts. And on that basis, I can barely be arsed to read your posts, let alone treat them with any meaningful consideration.

.

trailmonkey - Member

In relation to Lybia or just their current ideological policies at home ?

Just interested and pleased to hear that someone somewhere is being proactive should it be the latter.

I was of course referring to next Saturday's demonstration against the government's politically motivated spending cuts.

BTW, can I just mention that handing out flyers has never been my cup of tea, and today just reinforced that. Tomorrow we will leafleting door to door - a much productive activity imo. Not only will we be able to distribute far more leaflets, but they will be placed on someone's doormat rather than trying to cram them in people's hands as they rush about with their shopping bags from shop to shop. And more importantly, they might sit down to read them, instead of leaving them half screwed up in the bottom of their shopping.

Of course the one great advantage of handing out leaflets and why it tends to be done, is that unlike door to door, it gives people an opportunity to talk to you and discuss things and maybe get involved themselves. I also discovered that there appears to be a disproportionate of amount of ladies who are concerned with the government's politically motivated spending cuts 8)

Don't think he ejected in time ....
[img] [/img]

Just one thing though........I know you claim to be daft, but surely you can tell the difference between me saying "I don't pretend to know everything that is happening in Libya - no one can know that" and me claiming to know nothing ?

I am of course referring to this comment :

[i]big_n_daft - Member

lots of "fact" debunking for someone who doesn't know whats going on[/i]

Working on the premise that no one is that daft

so you [b]know something[/b]

is your [b]knowledge[/b] giving you the ability to determine that people's points of view are based on lies?

so please enlighten us further with your [b]knowledge[/b]

anyway is that hotline in yet, you seem to have better sources than the worlds media with your black and white assertions about what is not happening there

I was of course referring to next Saturday's demonstration against the government's politically motivated spending cuts

is the entirety of the cuts politically motivated or just the additional amount to what labour would have cut?

what were the Green party going to do about the deficit? Please tell us....

or are the questions

puerile

Gadaffi is a nutter. He'll kill loads of Libyans to protect his rule.

big n daft have you thought about giving us your view rather than just explaining to us why you think ernie is incorrect. I assume you attack him with your petty digs as your own attempts to explain your own view are laughably poor- though admittedly you are bright enough to have realised this- chapeau but a bit pathetic TBH.

Lets face it we need their oil. So since we originally backed what appears to be the losing side, we now are going in under the auspices of saving the rebels and stopping an humanitarian disaster. Like we give a monkies what happens to these people! The UN should have gone in straight away rather than dithering, this just shows that Europe and the UN have no teeth. Better fill those Petrol tanks peeps 1.50 a litre here we come.

I merely note the it's unsurprising that someone under the moniker "Ernie Lynch" defends the "revolution", I suppose he'll defend the collective trials and firing squads afterwards as well.

especially for Junkyard

The failure of the UN to be able to deal with fast evolving events is essentially due to it's very nature. In Tunisia and Egypt the strong military infrastructure maintained stability and did the essential thing which is not to shoot lots of people. This allowed the political situations to develop and the changes to date happen relatively peacefully. In Libya the military was weak as Gaddafi was keen to ensure that history didn't repeat itself. This meant that the essential stabilisation was missing and events developed to where we are now. Personally I feel there needs to be more international will to stop countries using significant military force against civilians, however the problem is how to do it.

The current intervention is arguably too late to stop a protracted end game where lots more people will die. Would a no fly zone on Day 1 or 2 have stopped it? I don't know, but it would have set a marker where military force was seen to be a step too far for Gaddafi and may have stopped events unrolling as they are

Is the current action appropriate? Arguably you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personally I feel that 24 rolling news puts some countries on the back foot in terms of decision making as there is the constant need to respond to inane questions live to the world who are getting the latest footage. I don't think the UK government has run at this with glee, it has exposed a lot of issues with the defence review and the strategy behind it. Lots of Cdr Forisque-Smyth's will be writing to the Telegraph/ Spectator telling of their disgust at the loss in capabilities, poor decision making and the rest of the "I told you so". We also have the issue of "where" as Yemen is potentially on a similar path.

As for Bahrain, I hope that lots of diplomatic action is going on to stop the current response to the protests. The US needs to be asking all the "friendly" dictatorships what their transition plan is. Simply because they either do it now on the front foot or soon on the back foot, Jordan may be a good example of this.

As for what are the facts? Hell I don't know. Everyone manipulates what is put out on the media and there are shades of grey. The intelligent programme about the manipulation of big news media in the run up to the gulf war shows that. At the same the stories about the "cockup's" still get out. Do I have a list of "lies", no I don't. Do I have any certainties?
Yes, using the military to shoot unarmed civilians engaged in peaceful protest is wrong. We found that out the hard way.

Please feel free to use any of the following

petty digs

laughably poor

pathetic

puerile

your inability to provide an intelligent and reasoned argument

fill your boots! 😉

i would ordinarily but that post is a bit long and the washing up needs doing 😉
[teacher mode]Well reasoned and an overall cogently argued view. Keep up the good work [/teacher mode]
I dont really disagree with most of what you have said but is it not better to debate like this than just see who is the best at arguing?
it is no surprise that those who are best at arguing are often the best at reasoning as well. I prefer more of the later than the former but do clearly do both at times on here.
Cheers.

I see another medal on the way 🙁

is it not better to debate like this

yes but some debates end up with a variation of the usual rubbish and insults for those who disagree

when that starts I feel it's best to review the certainties of peoples arguments 😉

am i allowed to say told "told you so yet"? 😉

I'm sure the Navy's Tomahawks already have their targets picked 😉

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-long-until-we-start-bombing-libya-then