DELETED_74993

few of your lot amongst them too... 'arguably' ? come off it... they were not in Iranian waters.

Anyway I'm not referring to that I'm referring to the supply of weapons to Shia groups and the deployment of republican guard troops to Iraq both overt incursions near the border and covertly.

I think you mean Revolutionary Guard, and you are right, there were allegations of them crossing the border into Iraq, however there was no engagement with US or British Forces so it cannot really be considered a deployment. Equally we crossed the Iranian border quite often so quid pro quo and all that jazz.

As for weapon supply, you need to also look at both China, South Africa and Russia who directly and indirectly supply the majority of arms to militants, nominally through Syria, Iran and International arms dealers, including British and Israeli nationals.

If we are going to use military intervention to halt or at least impact on weapon supply then we will need to consider just what it is we will accomplish by attacking Iran, because it will be very little without first curtailing the international arms trade that fuels militancy and that would mean addressing other, rather more powerful nations.

I just think that an aggressive foreign policy in Iran at the moment is foolhardy and seems motivated by political issues in Israel rather than any real threat from Iran itself.
 
Last edited:
Define terrorism. Do you not think that bombing the CRAP out of Libyan civilian infrastructure and people is terrorism?

The Al Queda 'rebels' SHELLING the crap out of Sirte, while we ignored it, and the resultant civilian murders, was terrorism?

Modern day crusade, world change when 9/11 happened, oil/terrorism/WMD :D who knows what is the truth. All I can say is, I side with the western world, its better dead than red.

Pandora's box has been opened up in Libya, its like Twin Peaks.

Plus if you agree with Iran/Pakistan allowing Afghans the weapons and tech to blow up British soldiers, Soldiers actually putting in work to do their job and bring peace/infastruture to Afghan, when you read about some sucide bomber blowing up a compound or hotel in Kandahar all because of a book.

Flush out the Taliban, it might be a losing war/campaign but why not try, we managed it years ago in the British empire, we can do it again.
 
Last edited:
I suppose 'our' terrorists are 'good' terrorists.

Who gives a **** about the poor Libyan civilians.

Gaddaff didn't...

I dunno - maybe the west should have sat idly by when he was massacring his own people.

No one is arguing that the NTC are saints but at least that country has a chance of democracy succeeding.
 
Gaddaff didn't...

I dunno - maybe the west should have sat idly by when he was massacring his own people.

No one is arguing that the NTC are saints but at least that country has a chance of democracy succeeding.
Except he wasn't - he was just putting down a coup.

Anyway never mind, he has been murdered, without trial, as the Western powers wanted :)
 
I think it is naive to already jump to such conclusions when such event hasn't even taken place. Things can change very quickly in war. I am sure you have heard of 'Asymmetric warfare'.

*Takes arm chair generals hat off* ... I did say this of course its naive..... the lottery numbers will be tomorrow **** ****
 
LOL at the fears of World War 3. That ain't happening. No state is stupid enough to go to war with America & UK because they know they'd get their ass handed to them. Terrorists manage because they're decentralised, so we have nowhere to invade (now that we're done with Afghanistan nearly). You think any of Iran's "friends" would volunteer themselves for invasion/massacre if we went to war with Iran. I don't.

Besides, I highly doubt any military action against Iran will happen unless there's a fundamental change in the status quo. We're already embroiled in too many wars and I don't think Cameron or Obama have the political capital to gamble it away on another costly and protracted foreign war, not after they've seen what happened to Tony Blair and George Bush. In addition, the UK doesn't have the capability. We don't have enough troops and equipment.
 
Except he wasn't - he was just putting down a coup.

Anyway never mind, he has been murdered, without trial, as the Western powers wanted :)

Yeah... putting down a coup BY MASSACRING HIS OWN PEOPLE. And don't forget Gaddaffi is a perpetrator of countless other horiffic acts, Lockerbie included.

He ruled his country for 40-odd years without allowing the people to have their say in replacing him. It seems obvious that the "coup" was the morally correct course of action.
 
LOL at the fears of World War 3. That ain't happening. No state is stupid enough to go to war with America & UK because they know they'd get their ass handed to them. Terrorists manage because they're decentralised, so we have nowhere to invade (now that we're done with Afghanistan nearly). You think any of Iran's "friends" would volunteer themselves for invasion/massacre if we went to war with Iran. I don't.

Besides, I highly doubt any military action against Iran will happen unless there's a fundamental change in the status quo. We're already embroiled in too many wars and I don't think Cameron or Obama have the political capital to gamble it away on another costly and protracted foreign war, not after they've seen what happened to Tony Blair and George Bush. In addition, the UK doesn't have the capability. We don't have enough troops and equipment.

Go look at the 1930s and look at the 2010s

72 years after World War 2 ended and Europe is in crisis and could bring down the rest of the world, who caused WW1 and WW2 ;)

It all sounds like numberwang!
 
Yeah... putting down a coup BY MASSACRING HIS OWN PEOPLE. And don't forget Gaddaffi is a perpetrator of countless other horiffic acts, Lockerbie included.
And the NTC have not been involved in summary executions?

He ruled his country for 40-odd years without allowing the people to have their say in replacing him. It seems obvious that the "coup" was the morally correct course of action.

It was an internal issue.
 
And the NTC have not been involved in summary executions?

It was an internal issue.


...are you honestly saying life for the average Libyan is not better now? :rolleyes:

Internal issue? Ok. So say Germany starts gassing Jews again. Should we say "nah not our problem - it's an internal issue"?
 
We shouldn't be naive about the potential for Iran to attempt a nuclear weapons program, but at the same time we should be very careful about initiating military action against them in the short term, especially as it would increase, not decrease the risk to Israel and the stability of both the region and the Global Economy which I needn't tell you is shakey to say the least.

Make no mistake, an attack on Iran would mean War in the Middle East, and one we can ill afford at the moment.
 
...are you honestly saying life for the average Libyan is not better now? :rolleyes:

Internal issue? Ok. So say Germany starts gassing Jews again. Should we say "nah not our problem - it's an internal issue"?

I would imagine life is not all peachy if you are pro Gaddafi.

And yes, it was an internal issue.
 
Republican Guard???

I think you mean Revolutionary Guard, and you are right, there were allegations of them crossing the border into Iraq, however there was no engagement with US or British Forces.

I'm not sure you can say that with certainty... no overt engagement yes... no engagement - very doubtful.

The Shia Militia didn't always get on with them and the Iranians certainly had their people deployed too - it is unlikely they just took a back seat approach especially given that they used the offer of stopping killing British troops in return for the UK backing off their nuclear enrichment program.

IEDs in the form of artillery shells often couldn't penetrate armour... strangely enough IEDs identical to those used by Hezbollah started turning up. I've still got a rather gruesome photo of the remains of a car containing two bodies of some silly individuals who hit a pot hole in a road while transporting them....

If we are going to use military intervention to halt or at least impact on weapon supply then we will need to consider just what it is we will accomplish by attacking Iran, because it will be very little without first curtailing the international arms trade that fuels militancy and that would mean addressing other, rather more powerful nations.

Erm no - that's just silly - my original post was in reference to a comment that Iran has never attacked us - I'm not advocating military intervention against Iran on that basis. (If there is sufficient evidence of a nuclear program then that is a different story...)
 
Except he wasn't - he was just putting down a coup.

Yeah - snipers shooting anyone at random, mass execution of prisoners, shelling civilians... all 'just putting down a coup'.

Funny how you'd wish Cameron dead and believe him to be guilty of Treason yet Gaddafi was 'just putting down a coup'.

I think you've got rather a badly distorted world view.
 
I would imagine life is not all peachy if you are pro Gaddafi.

And yes, it was an internal issue.

You spectacularly failed to address either of my points. I asked about the average Libyan. The average Libyan is not pro-Gaddafi.

Why should the people of Libya be left at the mercy of somebody they don't want to be ruled by? Why should we just let them be murdered when they specifically ask for our help?

Your morality and logic are both seriously questionable.
 
I wonder if we had suicidal Islamic bombers in the uk before WW2 :confused:

No we didn't. The concept of Jihad was made up in the late 80's, some nut job decided to twist the meaning.

Just let Israel deal with it. We have enough problems over in the west.

+1 its not our war. We have enough problems already.
 
Last edited:
You spectacularly failed to address either of my points. I asked about the average Libyan. The average Libyan is not pro-Gaddafi.

Why should the people of Libya be left at the mercy of somebody they don't want to be ruled by? Why should we just let them be murdered when they specifically ask for our help?

Your morality and logic are both seriously questionable.
The holocaust was a systematic plan to wipe out the Jews and let me make it absolutely clear, it was an abhorrent thing to do, a disgusting time in history.

Why is a Gaddafi supporter not an average Libyan?

As for morality, what about Syria, do those people not deserve out help?
 
Back
Top Bottom