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:
How are the situations different? Why do we turn a blind eye to the deaths in Bahrain but we interject in Libya?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because one is isolated and only 3 killed. it's called scale and backing.

It is a totally different situation.

now again why have we been involved in so many conflicts with no oil, why has France made a majour U-turn and now want oil.

The oil arguments are ridiculous. it is a no fly zone.
 
Just read this and spotted this quote by an diplomatic correspondent, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739 .

Does Libya set a precedent for the future? Well maybe, but nobody is contemplating any kind of intervention to constrain the authorities in Bahrain, or anywhere else in the region for that matter. Except in exceptional circumstances the external pressure for reform will be political and diplomatic.

By Jonathan Marcus
Diplomatic correspondent
Click to expand...

That's why we're not 'bothering' with other parts of the world experiencing unrest.
 
It is shameful the way we think we can selectively police the world. What is Cameron going to do about the Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?

It seems nothing has been learned from our previous shambolic foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Perhaps because one is isolated and only 3 killed. it's called scale and backing.

It is a totally different situation.

now again why have we been involved in so many conflicts with no oil, why has France made a majour U-turn and now want oil.

The oil arguments are ridiculous. it is a no fly zone.
Click to expand...

They aren't ridiculous. BP has major assets in Libya (signed after Blair's disgusting cosying up to Gaddafi) which are now under threat after the way we've backed the rebels from the outset. IMO that's what the bungled SAS operation was about a few days ago - to see if the rebels would honour the terms of the BP contract in exchange for more backing from us.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Total also have assets in Libya which would explain why the French government are keen to get involved.
 
AcidHell2 said:
now again why have we been involved in so many conflicts with no oil, why has France made a majour U-turn and now want oil.

The oil arguments are ridiculous. it is a no fly zone.
Click to expand...

Libya and Iraq, oil. Afghanistan, an oil pipeline that bypasses Russia. The natural resource was just a coincidence, yes?
 
OldCoals said:
Libya and Iraq, oil. Afghanistan, an oil pipeline that bypasses Russia. The natural resource was just a coincidence, yes?
Click to expand...

How about all the african ones we've been into, how about serbia and the others. look back at UN and individual conflicts Allies have been into.

Afghanistan had nothing to do what so ever with oil.

and how does a no fly zone help the oil argument?
 
Surfer said:
My point is that, i'm sick of our politicians Cameron et al (and other international PM's, presidents etc) talking about the humanitarian need to be there...its the right thing to do blah blah blah! No you snakeskin hypocrites, its not coz we want to help people suffering its coz we want X resource that that the country has but we figure we will put a humanitarian wrapper around OUR warmongering and insidious planning and that no-one will notice.

Basically jackals figuring that Libya's international position is somewhat weakened so lets go in for the kill. Yay for international politics.

Last time i checked Libya was still a sovereign state...so we dont like the regime...tough got nothing to do with us....
Click to expand...

Well said!

britboy4321 said:
If a regime starts killing a lot of it's own citizens we have a moral imperative to try to stop it if we can - whether there is oil there or not ...
Click to expand...

Yes, why let them kill their own civilians when we can do it for them? After two 'wars' in Iraq i bet we've killed far more civilians there than Saddam ever did!
 
Whilst we are on a roll with this world police thing we're doing, isn't it time we resolved the African problems? Surely there must be some mineral wealth there we can get control of?
 
Dirk said:
Whilst we are on a roll with this world police thing we're doing, isn't it time we resolved the African problems? Surely there must be some mineral wealth there we can get control of?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of places but we don't have enough policemen.
 
Dirk said:
Whilst we are on a roll with this world police thing we're doing, isn't it time we resolved the African problems? Surely there must be some mineral wealth there we can get control of?
Click to expand...

It's sold on the open market, we already control it. Sad but that's the real world for you.
 
scorza said:
Helps rebels beat Gaddafi, possibly establish East Libya state (where all the oil is), honours contracts with BP and Total. Don't forget this is a lot more than just a no-fly zone.
Click to expand...

we had absolutely no issue with oil contracts until we started interfering, so it's a mute point.
 
Dirk said:
Whilst we are on a roll with this world police thing we're doing, isn't it time we resolved the African problems? Surely there must be some mineral wealth there we can get control of?
Click to expand...

We've been in there tried sorting it out and left after a while. Have people just forgotten all the missions we(collective we) have done.
 
AcidHell2 said:
How about all the african ones we've been into, how about serbia and the others. look back at UN and individual conflicts Allies have been into.

Afghanistan had nothing to do what so ever with oil.

and how does a no fly zone help the oil argument?
Click to expand...

The TAPI pipeline runs through Afghanistan it carries gas, not oil.

Zimbabwe, we did nothing, how many died in Rwanda?
 
Sky news keeps saying that HMS York is still in the med didn't get replaced by HMS westminster as the york is on route for its southern atlantic patrol?
 
OldCoals said:
The TAPI pipeline runs through Afghanistan it carries gas, not oil.
Click to expand...

And was secure before we raged war, it is absurd to think afghanistan has anything to do with gas or oil.

Again we have been into Africa and many other conflicts and then pulled out after a while. Also once things turn to civil/tribal war you can't exert pressure, like no fly zones or sanctions as it means nothing.
 
AcidHell2 said:
we had absolutely no issue with oil contracts until we started interfering, so it's a mute point.
Click to expand...

Well what if the Rebels had won (remember when this all started Gaddafi was on the ropes, the rumours that he'd left for Venezuela etc) - would they have honoured BP's contracts when we didn't lift a finger to help them? I wouldn't if I were them, I'd have nationalised the assets and maybe re-sold them to a different oil company. It's extremely naive to think we could have just stayed out of this and BP's assets would remain secure in Libya, we had to pick a side - I think we picked the right side - and now we have to lie in the bed we've made for ourselves. I just hope when this is all over and hopefully BP's assets are secure, they remember the cost of all this.

The term is "moot point" btw.
 
OldCoals said:
The TAPI pipeline runs through Afghanistan it carries gas, not oil.

Zimbabwe, we did nothing, how many died in Rwanda?
Click to expand...

The TAPI pipeline hasn't been built yet has it? Tell me why the US and Britain should care enough about a gas pipeline from Russia to India and Pakistan to invade a country?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom