Poll: DELETED_74993

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 306 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 295 49.1%
  • Total voters
    601
Status
Not open for further replies.
Surfer said:
When of course we wont go in there because UAE, Saudis and Bahrain are our buddies wooo! so they can murder to their hearts content.... unbelievable..:mad:
Click to expand...
Well, I'm afraid the government is damned. We can go into a country without UN mandate (Iraq 2.0), and get criticised. Or we can choose to only go into a country with UN mandate, and get criticised.

Good luck getting a UN resolution/Arab support for a Bahrainian intervention.
 
arknor said:
the rebels dont have a chance unless you start bombing all of gaddafis tanks and artillery
Click to expand...

The resolution includes that possibility. As it stands, the resolution is to protect Libya's civilians from further attack. A no-fly zone is just the start, although the UN does wish to avoid any ground war. I think it's safe to assume we'll see the UN bombing Gaddafi ground assets very shortly too.
 
simulatorman said:
You conveniently mix your list up.

The British and French forces did not intervene in most of those places and where they did it was in as part of a UN force.
Click to expand...
Nothing convinient about it, that's as I remembered them (and I even added a ? re: Iraq).

The British were there, in military roles. And the UN bit was my point - we're engaging Libya under a UN mandate. Presumuably without alturistic intent. Must be ze oil!!!! :rolleyes:
 
snowball1 said:
If it was about oil, we would have supported Gadaffi. He has had it coming since Lockerbie.
Click to expand...

His contract ended once the Libyan rebellion started, besides they can't show themselves helping out (supporting) a Dictator while the whole world is watching.

Just like Saddam, his contract was set for 40 years in power.
 
meghatronic said:
Well, I'm afraid the government is damned. We can go into a country without UN mandate (Iraq 2.0), and get criticised. Or we can choose to only go into a country with UN mandate, and get criticised.

Good luck getting a UN resolution/Arab support for a Bahrainian intervention.
Click to expand...

The only reason the UN resolution wasn't vetoed by Russia or China is because the Arab League called for the No-Fly-Zone themselves. As it stands, they are the ones effectively occupying Bahrain. It's safe to say we'll see zero intervention.

Also, it's interesting to note that China and Russia both abstained from voting after Gaddafi proclaimed he'll only trade his oil assets with those two states and not France, USA or UK any longer. Call me cynical, but I still believe that oil is a main - if not the main - motivation behind the back-door persausions for this resolution to be passed.
 
Moses said:
And I would hope the international community would intervene if the British armed forces started killing us for expressing displeasure at the incumbent regime!
Click to expand...

I would hope not, if you are stupid enough to go into London with machine guns to show your displeasure tough ****.

I feel sorry for the people that have been bombed that didn't take to the streets with weapons, the rest of them I'm struggling to care. Leave them at it.

We should have left Iran and Iraq swiping at each other too.

Let someone else have the 'glory' on this one. Both us and the Ameicans should keep away from this one and let others step up to the plate.
 
Nix said:
The resolution includes that possibility. As it stands, the resolution is to protect Libya's civilians from further attack. A no-fly zone is just the start, although the UN does wish to avoid any ground war. I think it's safe to assume we'll see the UN bombing Gaddafi ground assets very shortly too.
Click to expand...

these so called "civilians" are beeing bombed becasuse they have all taken up arms , some are on flat bed trucks with AA guns, some are even in outdated tanks ...

they are not unarmed civilians beeing killed while they do the gardening or watch TV :rolleyes:.

you know when you start taking up arms and openly fighting against an army how are you still a civilian? or are you talking about the unarmed protestors who aparently got bombed the other week? the ones who russia says there is no evidence to suggest this ever even took place because they were watching with a satelite the whole time.

we have never ever saw any evidence it happened either
 
They are civilians that have resorted to taking up arms when means of peaceful protest failed. They are the Libyian people and they want change. Gaddafi has no right to bomb them.

There's plenty of news footage around if you bother to look of aircraft flying low and bombing the rebels. It is happening.

Also, less of the poxy rolleyes.
 
But No 10 sources have declined to put any timetable on possible British military engagement - or whether action could begin this weekend. The BBC's Defence Correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the UK and its allies had to decide what their initial targets would be and who would conduct the missions.
Click to expand...

Love that quote, so she seems to think the MOD hasn't looked at what to attack before the UN passed the no-flyzone ruling, give me a break, an initial plan for fixed targets might have been in place for years.
 
So what happens if he shoots a Tornado down (highly unlikely)?

Funny - in other countries where people arm themselves and attempt to topple the leader, would we not be calling them insurgents/terrorists?
 
Last edited:
xibinim said:
So what happens if he shoots a Tornado down (highly unlikely)?
Click to expand...

we send in a SAR team or SF to pick up the pilot

UN resolution doesnt say we cant put troops in for rescue - just that we cant invade / occupy

edit : the detail that people are missing is that they were just protesters originally who then have then been forced to take up arms to defend themselves from their own leaders
 
Last edited:
xibinim said:
So what happens if he shoots a Tornado down (highly unlikely)?
Click to expand...

Not that unlikely - the Tornado's biggest threat is AAA guns, and Gadaffi's forces seem to have an awful lot of them.

That said, there's a good chance of our tactics being to start off using stand-off weaponry and high-level precision attacks from above 10,000ft.

If he downs a Tornado, he makes an RAF squadron unhappy. Repercussions could range from nothing, to very severe.
 
Air attack isn't the only option anyways, a more expensive choice could be to stick a few sub launched Tomahawk / Cruise missiles into some key targets and hope the shock of the attack makes him back down.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom