Poll: Rebels rolling into Tripoli

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 291 49.7%

  • No

    Votes: 294 50.3%
  • Total voters
    585
Honestly I couldn’t give a **** what it was about, I don’t care if it was about oil, humanity or custard. Seeing the population of Tripoli on the streets, throwing flowers at the rebel cars coming in and shouting freedom vindicated it for me no matter what the motives. They don’t matter, what does matter is that a nation that has had its history decimated by 43 years of tyranny stands a chance of sorting itself out.

And if that sounds a little wet then fair do’s but few of us know what it must be like to live in fear, to have every element of your existence controlled, to have history lessons banned so that you grow up not knowing your identity as a nation. Who cares what sparked NATO to help, all that matters is that these people have a chance to change their futures.
 
[TW]Fox;19886763 said:
Sigh.

Do you ever take a break from the relentlessly boring anti-government pro-anarchy I-support-people-who-trash-Tesco theme that permeates every post you make to actually think before simply firing off yet more of the same?

You think its all about oil?

Lets look at that. Prior to the uprising, Gadaffi was quite happily selling all the oil he could produce on the world market. Most of it went to Europe. We had his oil and there was no real reason why, if we went on supporting him, we wouldnt continue to have his oil. Even his infrastructure was geared up to selling his oil in Europe with undersea pipelines etc.

The most oil friendly option was to support him.

Yet we didn't and as a consequence since the beginning of the conflict the premium Brent Crude holds over West Texas Intermediate has ballooned to record highs. We no longer have his oil and it will be YEARS before production is restored properly and when it is - it'll be for exactly the same price relative to neighbours as it always was, only in the meantime, we've all had to pay more for oil.

But I guess sitting there shouting 'its all about oil!' is cool, right?
Click to expand...

Is the conflict solely about protecting civilians ?

I don't see a military build up in Syria whose civilians are being cut down and didn't Bahrain crack down on uprisings a while back ? Their punishment ? Don't do it again said the US who are allowed to house a naval fleet there and not connected with looking the other way I'm sure.
 
It is(was) most certainly about oil and having puppets that play ball on the seats of power in the states that produce it.
 
Nerusy said:
To the people wondering why we're not doing the same in Syria...wait for it, we might just intervene there.

So far arab league and protestors in Syria both do not want any intervention.

In Lybia both the arab league and rioters wanted nato help because Gedaffi was bombing civilians and rioters.

If we get arab support then why the hell not intervene?

If we don't have the arab support then intervening is not an option.

and that is the reason we're not doing anything about Syria...yet.
Click to expand...


The is also the fact that on paper Syria is a pretty even match for the RAF whereas Libya was a pushover, would make enforcing a no fly zone a bit difficult no?
 
Robbo said:
Maybe they've got the BBC's equipment and will be able to do some filming for them :p
Click to expand...

I was watching last night before going to bed... BBC were a compete joke compared with Sky's Alex Crawford.


PermaBanned said:
And we intervened in a way that would protect our interests in the country (oil),
Click to expand...
Erm no. Complete opposite really. We (BP) had paid Gaddafi’s lot good money for rights in Libya, but now he's not in charge. Are we gonna get our money back? **** no.
 
Oil prices have dropped, we can soon start swimming in the stuff again :)

Lets invade more oil countries

WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR :D
 
Westyfield2 said:
I was watching last night before going to bed... BBC were a compete joke compared with Sky's Alex Crawford.



Erm no. Complete opposite really. We (BP) had paid Gaddafi’s lot good money for rights in Libya, but now he's not in charge. Are we gonna get our money back? **** no.
Click to expand...

Could always take some of the gold Libya has and give to BP for compensation :p
 
Westyfield2 said:
Erm no. Complete opposite really. We (BP) had paid Gaddafi’s lot good money for rights in Libya, but now he's not in charge. Are we gonna get our money back? **** no.
Click to expand...

Those contracts should still be valid under the new regime, if the new government breaks them the UK can seek remuneration through the court. Its like when the new Iraqs commercial jets landed in England and were seized, new regime doesn't mean old debts/contracts wiped.

This is one of the reasons nothing much was said about Iraq for a long time, then the minute Russia's 10 year oil rights contract was due to expire INVASION! before a new contract could be tendered for, then the new Iraq puppet government gave its oil contracts to companies form the countries that "liberated" it, at a bargain price ofc.
 
[TW]Fox;19887008 said:
Err oil is now down only $2 on the day having recovered much of the overnight falls.
Click to expand...

$2 per country aint too shabby.

We need to roll across North Africa now and by the time we get to Egypt, the Issys will be up for it as well... anything for them to bang a few bombs into the Arabs.

Sounds easy ;)
 
OldCoals said:
Because we were spun another lie?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly expect them to explicitly state that we're taking military action to secure our oil supplies? Sorry but the world doesn't work like that and never will. At least they didn't make up complete BS this time about Gadaffi having WMD.
 
What strikes me about the whole thing is how 'ordinary' the rebels seem. Just regular guys that seemed to have had enough. Perhaps it's the way the media are painting it?

And secondly... sorry if I'm the only one to find this amusing (death isn't funny btw)... but I saw pictures from the BBC last night of the rebels rolling in all gung-ho, they get some minor incoming fire and they all run for it.

If it is true about 65000 troops in Tripoli, then I hope for both sides some sensible resolution is found, else this could turn real nasty. THe only other thing is that perhaps (a big perhaps) that Gaddafi is trying to suck all the rebels in, and then pincher move them.
 
Scougar said:
What strikes me about the whole thing is how 'ordinary' the rebels seem. Just regular guys that seemed to have had enough. Perhaps it's the way the media are painting it?
Click to expand...

No more/less ordinary than the rebels lead by Gaddafi during Libyas last revolution really.

Imo both sides are just as bad:
Loyalists use cluster bombs on rebel civilian targets, rebels use area of effect rocket strikes on loyalist civilian targets.
Loyalist soldiers kill unarmed rebel supporters, rebel soldiers kill unarmed loyalist supporters.
Loyalist soldiers rape rebel supporters, rebel soldiers rape loyalist supporters.
Loyalists use aeroplanes/gunships against rebel targets, rebels use aeroplanes gunships against loyalist targets.

I fail to see how the new Libyan revolution is shaping up to turn out better than the last Libyan revolution tbh. Well aside from the USA supporting this one instead of opposing it.




dbmzk1 said:
The RAF would walk all over the Syrian Air Force.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't, like I said on paper it would be an even match, this was addressed in another thread a while back, unless the government chose to commit the entire RAF it could go either way, but its irrelevant as we wouldn't fight alone if a coalition did go up against Syria.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom