David Cameron - war criminal?
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,393
I think you'll find thats gavrilo princip's fault, and some random stray dog on the battlefield.
This is pathetic. The house of commons voted on taking action in Libya, with the large majority voting for action.
This is a disgusting display of scapegoating/slopey-shouldering. Do not be fooled by this, the decision to go to war rests on the entire house, not just David Cameron.
This is a disgusting display of scapegoating/slopey-shouldering. Do not be fooled by this, the decision to go to war rests on the entire house, not just David Cameron.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
Isis wasn't mentioned in the article, just that apparently lots of lybians were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interesting.
Nothing in the article suggests any war crimes have been committed.
That must be the OP artistic autistic licence.
It all basically boils down to a bit of an ill thought out mess. This would be reasonably consistent with most of their home policies at the time also.
The UN also approved the UK's intervention in Libya. So this whole thing is a beatup.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,798
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
And if we continue to support terrorists in Syria, what do they expect to happen there?
Also in Libya it was reported that the Arab league requested support. Yet i don't see the Arab league doing much to combat ISIS
Also in Libya it was reported that the Arab league requested support. Yet i don't see the Arab league doing much to combat ISIS
This is Judas being stabbed by the Romans.
Blood on Cameron's hands? Certainly. The politicians turning on him at the moment? Pure self-interest on their part. William Hague had as much or more responsibility for the disaster in Libya than David Cameron. If Cameron's accusers were truly motivated by what they pretend they're motivated by, they'd be calling for William Hague's head right now.
Blood on Cameron's hands? Certainly. The politicians turning on him at the moment? Pure self-interest on their part. William Hague had as much or more responsibility for the disaster in Libya than David Cameron. If Cameron's accusers were truly motivated by what they pretend they're motivated by, they'd be calling for William Hague's head right now.
Cameron had little choice but to get involved. Gadaffi was massacring his own people, and we were asked for support. The big mistake is the one we keep making post-Afghanistan and post-Iraq: not committing.
If you're going to get involved in these kinds of conflicts, you need to put boots on the ground and commit to supporting the re-building. Instead we acted as air force to a ground operation consisting of rag-tag militias and then let then walked away leaving them to fall on one another in a chaotic mess.
If you're going to get involved in these kinds of conflicts, you need to put boots on the ground and commit to supporting the re-building. Instead we acted as air force to a ground operation consisting of rag-tag militias and then let then walked away leaving them to fall on one another in a chaotic mess.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,262
Probably Not Albert Einstein said:
I don't think Cameron is a war criminal but he might be criminally stupid. The logic of it didn't work in Iraq, it's not working in Syria so lets try it in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt simultaneously beggars belief.
I would propose that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt attempting to depose through military or other means Middle Eastern despots results in an increase in the net sum of human misery not a reduction.
Cameron was a numpty to think otherwise. I mean for pity's sake we nearly voted to make ourselves the ISIS air force if it hadn't been for Ed Milliband's rubber spine (as opposed to insight).
Still at least he has led us to the exit from the EU even if by accident.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,262
Yeah I had an inkling it was misattributed but couldn't be bothered fully checking before posting. The sentiment is sound if the provenance isn't.That fake Einstein quote just won't die, will it?
Gadhafi had popular support across most of Libya. Nor was he carrying out massacres in Benghazi. The British government isn't stupid - the military campaign was accompanied (preceded) by a very thorough media campaign which misled a lot of people. Libya was doing very well. One of the few modern nations that wasn't in debt, had the highest literacy rates in North Africa and indeed across most of Africa excepting obvious ones like South Africa. Had the highest doctor to patient ratio in North Africa and other indicators of a country's success. Obviously it wasn't perfect - it's a country in North Africa - but it was a success story for its region. It was also realizing an extensive aquifer program that would have revolutionized agriculture across much of the country. It's biggest mistake was probably investing $1.3bn of its
money with Goldman Sachs who promptly lost it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/31/goldman-sachs-libya-investment
GS were forced to negotiate a compensation deal that would have sold Libya $5bn of preferred shares in themself. Can you imagine GS one of America's richest financial companies and the one with inarguably THE greatest overlap with the US government, having Libya control a significant interest in it? Happily Libya was bombed to bits before any such deal had to be signed and the missing billions appear to have been conveniently written off. It is naïve in the extreme to think that the West had no discussions with the Benghazi rebels prior to their attacks. The UK had oil representatives signing deals with them before the war was won. In fact, negotiations were known to be ongoing with the Benghazi militias even in March of that year (specifically Heritage Oil, a British oil company with strong military connections).
It was said that Gadhafi was "massacring his people". The war began when a militia in Benghazi seized a military base and stole army weapons. They did not enjoy popular support and this was not a popular uprising. They also then seized control of an airport. The Libyan army sent tanks up outside the city. The UK government would do no less if a paramilitary group seized control of an RAF base for example. The UK government then went into overdrive announcing through every possible channel that Gadhafi was massacring peaceful protestors and suppressing a popular uprising. False. Those 'peaceful protestors' had already killed, seized military weapons and were in negotiations with the West already.
The Benghazi forces gained momentum for one dominating reason - NATO forces were willing to spend millions per day bombing any force that was in their side's way and bombing any town that didn't accept their troops. And those troops weren't even all Libyans. A large proportion of the "uprising" was actually comprised of soldiers from Qatar which supported the overthrow of the existing government. And Qatar cheerfully emptied oil depots along the coast and shipped that oil off to sell in return as well. The forces that we were backing were NOT nice people. They massacred Black people and deported them from towns to be killed.
Libya was a nation without debt, successfully improving in quality of life indicators year on year and was influential in trying to bring greater economic unity to the continent of Africa - they proposed using their gold reserves (where are they now?) to back an "African Euro" which would have done wonders for Africa as a whole. They were owed $5bn in shares by Goldman Sachs. They have the tenth largest oil reserves in the world meaning that they could mess with the price of oil at will - the price of oil being one of the foundation pillars of the world economy. And they refused to play proxy for the US control unlike countries such as Saudi Arabia. We in the UK were subject to one of the most heavy-handed and forceful media campaigns against the country we've seen in a long time. The rest of the world sees a developing country that got stomped into the ground by a Western backed force because it was an economic and political (not military) threat to the West.
You can check anything I've said in this post. It's all factual. The only part I can't back up unequivocally is that the Benghazi rebels were in negotiation with the West prior to the beginning of the war. But given that oil deals were being negotiated within around six weeks of the start, and given that Western intelligence simply isn't a group of blind idiots, it's pretty darn ****ing likely.
You know those Japanese in WWII who thought they were winning the war even near the end? We're like that in the UK when it comes to Libya. The government pushed so hard on presenting its preferred view to support war against the country. A war where we spent a million pounds on every cruise missile we fired into that country, btw.
You know what would really blow some people's minds? Libya almost certainly wasn't behind the Lockerbie bombing. The evidence shows that it was likely Iran behind it. The father of one of the victims has campaigned for years to try and get it reviewed as did the MP Tam Dalyell. But not much success. Gadhafi agreed to accept responsibility for it years later in return for the West agreeing to trade deals. Which they later reneged on.
Sadly, when the lies are big enough, those arguing against them are seen as "conspiracy theorists" even when they just post a list of verifiable facts and suggest that the government might use propaganda to make a population accept a war.
We have spent around £25m on rebuilding Libya. Of course, that's around a tenth of the amount we spent bombing the Hell out of it.
Last edited:
Back on topic, I honestly don't see why David Cameron should be the whipping boy for this. Only thirteen MPs actually voted against the bombing of Libya.
Jeremy Corbyn was one of them, by the way. I have to at least give him that he's consistent in his views.
Jeremy Corbyn was one of them, by the way. I have to at least give him that he's consistent in his views.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,148
- Location
- South
Nearly chocked on my coffee!!! hahaha!
The UN approved the enforcement of a no-fly zone that's all, not the NATO military strikes that followed.
IMO western nations have played a big part in creating the vacuums that terrorist organisations such as ISIS have filled and our actions have also played a large part in their growth.