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.
OldCoals said:
The Government’s decision to decommission HMS Ark Royal, Harrier jump jets and the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft — all of which could have played a role in the Libya conflict — has exacerbated the problem. Serving RAF pilots contacted The Daily Telegraph to warn of the risks to the Libya operation. “We have a declining pool of pilots,” one said. “There’s less people to do twice as much work. If we are not training any more we are going to run out of personnel very soon.
Click to expand...

Look at aircrew getting their nickers in a twist due to short falls in manning and an increase in work load... it's been the case for everyone in the forces for a long time.
 
do_ron_ron said:
I see the media are protraying a huge rebel advance taking town after town etc etc, giving the impression of rebels defeating gaddafi's forces. Last night one of the reporters said that although the advance had been swift it was only because the Govt. forces had abandoned the towns. When they came up against forces outside Sirte they got on their trucks and jeeps and withdrew 25km.

As far as I can see there is stalemate. The rebels cannot advance without NATO airforces destroying Govt. forces and the Govt. cannot advance without the NATO planes bombing them.

It has gone passed the time when NATO forces can hide behind the fig leaf of 'protecting civilians', how long are they prepared to continue the bombing?

The longer it takes the more opposition in member countries and especially muslim countries.

Unless something dramatic happens, Cameron has got the UK in a no-win situation.
Click to expand...

Something dramatic like what though? We'll probably just end up doing like Afghanistan and patrolling the skies with drones.
 
Captain Planet said:
Something dramatic like what though? We'll probably just end up doing like Afghanistan and patrolling the skies with drones.
Click to expand...

Something dramatic like one of Gaddafi's bodyguards shooting him like the Indian occasion.

Like Afghanistan and drones?? You mean like killing innocent wedding party guests and agitating people you are claiming to be acting for.

I think that would just about guarantee another 7/7 or worse.
 
OldCoals said:
So how long before the US arm the rebels, if they haven't already.
Click to expand...

they had new looking ak47's days ago acording to journalists in libya...

(Reuters) - Intelligence on the rebel forces battling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence, but there is still no detailed picture of the emerging Libyan opposition, NATO's top operations commander said on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

sounds retarded to even consider arming them no doubt half the weapons will go into terrorist hands
 
XRAY said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12770467



On reading this report from the BBC, I was struck, not by personal feelings of opposition to such action, but by curiosity of public opinion to such a situation developing.

It goes without saying that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unpopular with the British people. Would the public support military action in another Middle Eastern country? Admittedly, the report mentions nothing about ground troops and, as far as I can tell, offensive intervention would involve the RAF only.

A separate but interesting point to mention is that this would be the first major operation since the Defence and Security Co-operation Treaty was signed in November last year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_and_Security_Co-operation_Treaty

Ethical discussions aside, it would be quite interesting to see the fruits of this treaty in action.
Click to expand...

I said and voted no. What's it got to do with us.

There is nothing there let them fight it out. Or better still let the other 50 odd countries in the area sort it out for them. Why waste UK taxpayers money on this?
 
arknor said:
they had new looking ak47's days ago acording to journalists in libya...



sounds retarded to even consider arming them no doubt half the weapons will go into terrorist hands
Click to expand...

Apart from being illegal under the UN mandate 1973(section 9 I think). Still when has that ever stopped the US.

I see the rebels fled quick time when they came up against Govt. troops and have given up a couple of towns. Without the RAF(Rebel Air Force) and others they would be back in Benghazi or it would all be over by now.

Lol at Hague's latest speech. Gaddafi is not going, even he should be able to understand that now.
 
I read this morning that Clinton thinks it *could* be legal to arm them, I presume under the 1973 'lets be as vague as possible' UN mandate? If not, would they have to vote for a new one? Surely Russia and China would not abstain this time?
 
xibinim said:
I read this morning that Clinton thinks it *could* be legal to arm them, I presume under the 1973 'lets be as vague as possible' UN mandate? If not, would they have to vote for a new one? Surely Russia and China would not abstain this time?
Click to expand...

However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the conference that although UN sanctions prohibited the delivery of arms to Libya, the ban no longer applied.
Click to expand...

America trying to change the rules.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said at the London conference that France and its partners were prepared to discuss arming the rebels but not without the backing of a new UN Security Council resolution.

"I remind you that this is not what is envisaged by Resolution 1973... so for the moment France has agreed to the strict application of these resolutions," he said.
Click to expand...

The French seem to be sticking to the rules for the moment.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC that Britain was not planning to give military assistance to rebels "in any form... at the moment".
Click to expand...

And Hague against .... well maybe.

You got to laugh. It would appear that they hugely overestimated the rebels and that the bombing would be enough. They have now realised it is a more complex situation and that Gaddafi is likely to win unless they do something.
 
xibinim said:
Any reason as to why the ban doesn't apply any more? This is fast turning into a [potential] farce!
Click to expand...

Supplying arms is banned. Section 9, I think it was but events have not gone the way the US wanted/expected so they want to change the rules.

It has gone beyond a farce.

London conference to decide the future of the country and Hague has a talk with one of the rebel leaders about humanitarian aid then the other 40? talk about what is going to happen to the country.

Have these people learned nothing from History?
 
I'm amazed how evenly split the poll is. Voted yes as I think the people there need the help, it's not fair for anyone to live under a dictator.
 
MooMoo444 said:
I'm amazed how evenly split the poll is. Voted yes as I think the people there need the help, it's not fair for anyone to live under a dictator.
Click to expand...

Same, it really has been neck and neck for a long time now. I also voted yes, on the basis that the people need help to remove a dictator. We are all a bunch of hypocrites though - the west just want to get rid of Gadhafi; Russia and China complain and yet could have used the veto; then of course there are the other countries in a similar situation, yet we do nothing.
 
MooMoo444 said:
I'm amazed how evenly split the poll is. Voted yes as I think the people there need the help, it's not fair for anyone to live under a dictator.
Click to expand...

The US has facilitated more dictators than anyone else and it is only when they do not take US orders that they want to change them. Saddam is the prime example.

Gaddafi is a maverick and doesn't take anybodys orders. Even N.Korea's Kim will listen to China most of the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom