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
dirtydog said:
The previous government was right, Gaddafi was our ally and he was behaving himself so this war was pointless. Now we are going to have an Islamist government - I guess you've seen the rebels shouting Allahu Akhbar on the news and waving their Islamist flag.
Click to expand...

I meant in general, this specific situation is somewhat complex considering all that has happened in the last 50 years, with our "mingling" in the region.

Eventually we will become the enemy, simply because the regions population will find out our governments will look like they supported the dictators (which we did and do, though im unsure if the locals realise to well).

This alongside the future nuclear arms race in the area, its getting too dangerous to be involved, though its already to late to say sorry, millions will die for the actions of a few stupid and greedy politicians.
 
Last edited:
dirtydog said:
The previous government was right, Gaddafi was our ally and he was behaving himself so this war was pointless. Now we are going to have an Islamist government - I guess you've seen the rebels shouting Allahu Akhbar on the news and waving their Islamist flag.
Click to expand...

Because waving your countries flag around and shouting god is great makes you a terrorist or something? :S
 
ubersonic said:
Because waving your countries flag around and shouting god is great makes you a terrorist or something? :S
Click to expand...

hsom89.jpg


Well apparently when the west does it, its saving the world, but when anyone else does, its terrorism.

Its funny really, terrorism is thrown around too much...no wonder so many people are atheists, when people start connecting things to money, political systems and their military.

When it fails, i would love to see how many stop being Christians.
 
reports emerged that soldiers from the elite 22 SAS Regiment were helping rebels track down Col Gaddafi.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the British troops have been dressing in Arab civilian clothing and are armed with the same weapons as locals.
Click to expand...

they are going to blend in real well! everyone else is wearing jeans and a tshirt! i bet they get captured by the rebels for beeing mercs :D

i thought it wasnt about gaddafi anyway and any reason to grab him on warcrimes is bs, the rebels are using child soldiers... we all saw them on skynews 14-15year olds with guns guarding prisoners in a school classroom which is considered a warcrime.

silly thing is all the papers were slaughtering gaddafi the other week because aparently he had been using child soldiers... both sides are doing the same stuff i wouldnt class either as beeing better than the other
 
Under what UN mandate are British troops allowed into Libya to 'track down' Gaddafi? I thought our mandate was a 'no fly zone to protect civilians' :rolleyes:

NATO is a law unto itself.
 
dirtydog said:
Under what UN mandate are British troops allowed into Libya to 'track down' Gaddafi? I thought our mandate was a 'no fly zone to protect civilians' :rolleyes:

NATO is a law unto itself.
Click to expand...

At the request of the government of Libya? That would make it completely legal.
 
RDM said:
At the request of the government of Libya? That would make it completely legal.
Click to expand...

A government which itself has no legal basis but who cares about such things as international law, that only applies to others right? Not to the mighty NATO.
 
dirtydog said:
A government which itself has no legal basis but who cares about such things as international law, that only applies to others right? Not to the mighty NATO.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that they had been recognised by the UK and many other nations? That would pretty much make it "legal" in as far as anything to do with international law is "legal".
 
RDM said:
I was under the impression that they had been recognised by the UK and many other nations? That would pretty much make it "legal" in as far as anything to do with international law is "legal".
Click to expand...

Yes, we have incited a coup, backed up the coup with military might and then declared the new government we have installed to be legal...

If you think that is all legit then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes, we have incited a coup, backed up the coup with military might and then declared the new government we have installed to be legal...

If you think that is all legit then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Click to expand...

If you haven't noticed, we've been doing it for the last 50 years...

When you are the law maker, law means nothing.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes, we have incited a coup, backed up the coup with military might and then declared the new government we have installed to be legal...

If you think that is all legit then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Click to expand...

Welcome to international politics.
 
dirtydog said:
Yes, we have incited a coup, backed up the coup with military might and then declared the new government we have installed to be legal...

If you think that is all legit then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Click to expand...

The scary thing is that also describes how the USA put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the 80's, hope this doesn't come back to haunt us...
 
dirtydog said:
Yeah I know, but it doesn't mean I don't think it stinks.
Click to expand...

On the surface, suprisingly, I agree with you. I think the problem is that none of us have any experience of the behind the scenes stuff or the issues which lead countless leaders to make such similar decisions. We are missing a huge part of the story - a part of the story we'll never have - when we judge actions of the heads of nations.

I bet there are numerous factors which make an illogical and/or wrong decision on the surface the right decision when you are in command of all the facts. I appreciate this does require us to have faith in those we elected to lead us - but what other choice do we have? It's not reasonable or practical that us mere citizens know the inner workings of these things anyway.

Some people seem to have the opinion that the President of the US sits in the Oval Office throwing darts at a world map deciding who to blow up next for the lulz. I simply cannot accept that in reality this is the case.
 
[TW]Fox;19917610 said:
On the surface, suprisingly, I agree with you. I think the problem is that none of us have any experience of the behind the scenes stuff or the issues which lead countless leaders to make such similar decisions. We are missing a huge part of the story - a part of the story we'll never have - when we judge actions of the heads of nations.

I bet there are numerous factors which make an illogical and/or wrong decision on the surface the right decision when you are in command of all the facts. I appreciate this does require us to have faith in those we elected to lead us - but what other choice do we have? It's not reasonable or practical that us mere citizens know the inner workings of these things anyway.

Some people seem to have the opinion that the President of the US sits in the Oval Office throwing darts at a world map deciding who to blow up next for the lulz. I simply cannot accept that in reality this is the case.
Click to expand...

Of course they have what they consider to be good reasons, but it seems quite clear that these reasons frequently bear little or no relation to what we are told publicly. And it is also perfectly clear that our leaders (in the West) are rank hypocrites in that they preach to other countries on various matters yet engage in the same or worse behaviour themselves. And they will support the toppling of some 'evil dictators' yet give full political and financial backing to others. Just as they backed Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Gaddafi at one time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom