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.
Tummy said:
Not to do stupid things like this or Iraq or Afganistan.

In 100% seriousness why didn't we help when other bad things have happened in the World?
Click to expand...

The simple explanation is that both Iraq and Afghanistan are in our National Interest.

Some people will debate this till the cows come home, but ultimately our Armed Forces are deployed when our interests are at risk and rarely otherwise.
 
Castiel said:
The simple explanation is that both Iraq and Afghanistan are in our National Interest.

Some people will debate this till the cows come home, but ultimately our Armed Forces are deployed when our interests are at risk and rarely otherwise.
Click to expand...

See :p you're doing it again! haha

I'll read the thread when I'm in bed in an hour or so.
 
Doesnt that dpeend on what you term as national interest?

Is it in our national interest to make an enemy of the Taliban? Of Gadaffi?

What puts our population in jeapordy? Going to war in these countries, or leaving them well alone? For me the answer is pretty obvious. If you mean to protect oil reserves then maybe but if you removed the amount of oil we used getting to and from Iraq, Afganistan, and Libya plus the number of lives that have been lost and the cost of all the weaponry and instead pumped that back into the country, it sounds crazy i know, but would we have sustained as many deaths and casualties?
 
The Running Man said:
Doesnt that dpeend on what you term as national interest?

Is it in our national interest to make an enemy of the Taliban? Of Gadaffi?

What puts our population in jeapordy? Going to war in these countries, or leaving them well alone? For me the answer is pretty obvious. If you mean to protect oil reserves then maybe but if you removed the amount of oil we used getting to and from Iraq, Afganistan, and Libya plus the number of lives that have been lost and the cost of all the weaponry and instead pumped that back into the country, it sounds crazy i know, but would we have sustained as many deaths and casualties?
Click to expand...



It doesn't really matter what you or I decide is in our national interest, we rarely have enough information to make a proper defined decision.

The reasons for War in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same and although referred to by the Bush Administration as the War on Terror, only really Afghanistan deserved that title.

The single issue of training camps and safe haven for al-Qaeda and related organisations in Afghanistan, supported by a regime with influence within the Army and Govt of a nuclear power in Pakistan is reason enough to do something about it.

There is no denying that allowing terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda the resources and stability of having a region in which they can freely operate is contrary to our national interest.

Iraq, again in this thread already I put forward the argument that aside from what he was doing to his own people, he was a threat to the regions stability, simply by his rhetoric against his neighbours and subjugation of Shia and Kurdish populations, along with his insinuation of weapons he didn't possess and refuse to co-operate fully with UN resolutions he contributed to his own demise.

As we have seen in the numerous threads on this subject, people will disagree and put forward that Hussein was no real risk and so on, however I posit that in a region as volatile as the Middle East, words are sometimes as damaging as or worse than actions, and Hussein was always the one for explosive and provocative rhetoric.

That is aside form energy security and the need to stop Iran or the Russian Federation from ultimately influencing and controlling Iraq when Hussein eventually fell from power, which was becoming more and more likely.

Our main problem with the Iraqi invasion, was not the invasion itself, but the utter stupidity of the Bush Administration in how they dealt with the aftermath, disbanding the Iraqi Army and not re-tasking them for security under a real Iraqi interim Government for a start.
 
Last edited:
The Running Man said:
Is it in our national interest to make an enemy of the Taliban? Of Gadaffi?
Click to expand...

I'd say destroying the Taliban came into the national interest when they allowed Bin Laden and his merry band to use their 13th century sewer of a country to mount attacks against the west.

Gadaffi, on the other hand, seemed to be keeping his nose clean this last 15 years or so.
 
But with our growing Muslim population what problem would al quada have against us that would lead them to attack us? That's what I don't understand.

By national interest what I.genuinely believe you mean is in BP's private interest and possibly the MOD's afterall if there are no wars to throw yourself into, how do you fight a budget decrease. And then what happens to senior military leavers who go to BAE or another defence contractor? Not much so it is absolutely in the interests of those in power to push for war for entirely selfish reasons and pseudo economic reasons - against national interest but to benefit those at the top.

Why do we need to stop Russia? Look ar the Germans surely they need more oil to support heavily
deployed industry - but they aren't always first in and last out on these jaunts are They.
 
The Running Man said:
But with our growing Muslim population what problem would al quada have against us that would lead them to attack us? That's what I don't understand.

By national interest what I.genuinely believe you mean is in BP's private interest and possibly the MOD's afterall if there are no wars to throw yourself into, how do you fight a budget decrease. And then what happens to senior military leavers who go to BAE or another defence contractor? Not much so it is absolutely in the interests of those in power to push for war for entirely selfish reasons and pseudo economic reasons - against national interest but to benefit those at the top.
Click to expand...
no wars? really? you might find the current wars are the reason for the blackhole due to UOR's and PFI's

could you show me the correlation between muslim populations and a decrease in attacks? the multitude of civil wars with muslims on both sides would suggest your assertion to be very naive.
 
Last edited:
Nutella33 said:
no wars? really? you might find the current wars are the reason for the blackhole due to UOR's and PFI's

could you show me the correlation between muslim populations and a decrease in attacks? the multitude of civil wars with muslims on both sides would suggest your assertion to be very naive.
Click to expand...

Well after the war with Argentina over the falkland island we werent that active until 1991 which was 9 years later. Excluding Ireland, but then you dont need 4th gen fighter jets for that situation.

Its then another 8 years until the balklands conflict and then we have Sierra Leone...

So the type of force that we have is completely wrong for the type of engagements that we have actually faced over the last 30-40 years. It is wrong in shape, structure, and armament. Why? Because the army, raf, navy are all competing for funds, lieing to politicians to exploit the lack of knowledge about potential dangers and threats in order to increase or sustain budgets on weaponry that is never likely to be fully utilised. How many tanks does the british army have? when was the last time we used tanks en masse in any kind of ground battle?

Why did Blair go to meet with gadaffi? to win BP an oil contract. If you understand that we can make peace with a dictator who sanctioned terrorist style activity to build private commercial relationships, then it isnt too big a stretch to understand that we then might turn on a dictator for the same commercial purposes.

SO you end up with MOD whispering one thing to the government, in an effort to substantiate the hardware that they have, and you have private businesses demanding that the government takes action to benefit them too...to suppose that neither of these things were factors, along with some unknown want to be the 'right hand man' to americas own oil led wars had no impact upon our country choosing to go to war is what i would call naive.
 
Looks like the rebels are already producing oil:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/9438022.stm

It seems the destruction of Gadaffi's forces is giving the rebels free reign to move their own military forces throughout the whole country.

Are we going to bomb the rebels if they use heavy weapons against towns and cities under Gadaffi's control? Some how I really doubt it even if there are civilian casualties.

FFS,can't our government just admit they want regime change and be honest about it.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
FFS,can't our government just admit they want regime change and be honest about it.
Click to expand...

anyone who believes otherwise is very naive.. most of the tanks bombed have been out in the open aswell so its not like gaddafis forces have been hiding around civilians...

some of the tanks near miserata had the turrets facing the town while it was in gaddafi military control and no rebels and they were bombed to.

its amazing how quick it goes from bombing stuff putting civilians in danger to just openly bombing everything while aparently not coordinating with the rebels.

they only bomb where the rebels need to go so thats a lie its not random or targets actually putting civilians at risk.

most of tripoli will be displaced soon and even more refugees... no doubt gaddafi will be blamed by the allies for causing a humanitarian disaster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom