Yep exactly.
Poll: DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
- Status
Yep exactly.
he punished a lot of people that started an uprising during the first gulf war but other than that what did he do?
a lot of the crap floating around are just stories that cant be backed up probably propaganda created by america..
btw you saw on bbc news the milita are already arguing about stuff in the streets.
cant wait till these clowns get in goverment libya will be worse than it was
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- Southampton
I think Iraq and Afgan has made people very very cynical and jaded about intervention
If this Libya thing works out well (in a Kosovo kind of way) then maybe it would improve the way people think about using our military in the future
Get new friends TBH
Nope, I'm perfectly happy with my fairly sensible friends thank you.
The thing is, the younger people I know who oppose this don't really recall the first gulf war, some of them even the second gulf war, so a lot of their arguments are only based on hearsay and "internet research" which I think is unhealthy. I'm not saying they don't have valid points to make but a lot of the negativity around current action seems to be backed up with very little concrete evidence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
It's nice to see that, with the money he's saved up, David Cameron has treated himself to a war.
Different groups of people I guess and it's not really the right question as a simple yes no doesn't really cover it. I'm not totally against intervention just intervention done like this with no clearly defined goal or exit criteria, armed conflict needs to have a simple defined goal such as 'Kick the Argies out of the Falklands' with an obvious exit criteria 'Argies leave so we win and go home'. the trouble with this an other interventions we've been part of is the goal is unclear particularly in this case and more importantly the exit criteria is none existant as has been indicated everytime someone asks what are the conditions under which we will judge this a success.
My other big issue is the criteria we use to select which countries we intervene in, far worse atrocities have been commited all over Africa without us sending in the bombs, why here and why now?
Kosovo and the Balkans in general was an entirely different situation given that you had a load of states claiming independence from the country that was made up to rule them and one member state objecting to this with a particularly nasty use of force. It was easy for us to intervene as the enemy were clear as were the goals (establish Kosovo etc as independant countries) Libiya is different as you have two groups fighting for control of one country it is incredibly difficult to pick sides given that the current regieme still have a good sized popular support and the oposition are unknowns who in all likely hood are no better than those in power today.
We will not manage a clean exit from Libiya it will be another Iraq/Afghanistan.
Nope, I'm perfectly happy with my fairly sensible friends thank you.
Define younger, I'm 38, is that young to you?
I think there is overwhelming evidence of how the West conducts its foreign policy and therefore why their stated reasons for this military intervention cannot be trusted or taken at face value.
Let's face it, if the events in Kosovo had occurred in another region of the world, we would not have got involved. We only got involved because it was in our interests to do so, as the unrest could have threatened regional stability - our region.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,239
Are you really that ignorant? What about all of the mass graves that were found? You will probably argue that all the bodies were "invented" by the media.
Why not if you have nothing to hide?
I missed this gem.
No, he DID let them in. He let Hans Blix go ANYWHERE he wanted. Hans Blix said he needed more time. WE said NO, you don't have any more time, pull out now, we are going to bomb and invade regardless.
The WMDs story was BS, a smokescreen to fool the gullible and to add a fig leaf of justification for the war, they were ALWAYS going to invade, don't you see that?
You may well be right war in mainland Europe is always going to prompt a significant NATO response. The situation though as I have said was much more straight forward as the goals and objectives of the war were clearly defined and success/exit criteria were clear. There was never any real danger of it turning into a total mess like these wars we are being dragged into now.
I'd have much more time for our action in Libiya if we had gone in with the objective of dividing the country up along tribal lines leaving the current regieme on one side and establishing one or more new countries for the rebels. By trying to unite the country we just pro-long the situation, even if in the short term we establish the rebels as the countries rulers there will still be underlying tensions that will inevitably flare again as they are in Iraq.
Not at all, what about the graves as a result of sanctions and an invasion based on a lie?
Get new friends TBH
What? The kind of friends who cant form their own opinions so are encouraged by the masses of pacifist clueless idiots who have an answer to everything on Facebook and Twitter. Delightful folks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- Southampton
as you say kosovo was in our intrest due to its location and so is Libya, it literally borders Europe
you guys saying its going to turn into Iraq again - you are being jaded and not objective this situation is complelety different
all we know at the moment is that if those French jets had not turned up in time on saturday those tanks would have flattened Benghazi and killed a lot of civilians
you guys saying its going to turn into Iraq again - you are being jaded and not objective this situation is complelety different
all we know at the moment is that if those French jets had not turned up in time on saturday those tanks would have flattened Benghazi and killed a lot of civilians
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
I laugh whenever I hear all this BS about civilian casualties. Since WW1 the number of troops killed has gone down with newer technology, however the number of civilians killed has increased rapidly. You don't get wars without civilian casualties.
In this particular conflict, due to the actions of Western powers, the number of civilians killed will be greater than if they had not interfered. Gadafi will take it out on the eastern mob.
- Status