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.
I just want us to stay the **** out. Leave them to sort their own mess out.

If we all decided we didn't like the queen or cameron and took to the streets with automatic weapons we would end up getting shot as well.
 
At least we are going to help as part of the UN this time and not a sidekick to the US.

I can just see this pushing Gaddafi into a corner, especially as his tanks etc get taken out - ultimately I can see him causing enough trouble for us to end up sending in troops with the UN. I guess that is the price of oil these days :rolleyes:
 
We should not get involved in civil wars. End of story.

If we had one I would not expect / welcome outside intervention.

Let it run its course - it wont be pleasent - but the country will hopefully come out of it more stable... What we are doing will not help that end.
 
meghatronic said:
To prove the defence review is sensible and Britain still has teeth?

Oh and to, you know, for once do the right thing :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why the roll eyes? Isn't it a bit antiquated having to prove we have teeth? I thought things had moved on considerably.

And please enlighten me, why it is the right thing to do now? And do you suggest we get involved in other Middle Eastern tussles?
 
Last edited:
simulatorman said:
They never do things for altruistic motives.
Click to expand...

Somalia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Darfur, Sudan, Gulf War?, Rwanda, Sierra Leone etc…

Take this to SC if you want a more reasoned argument.


littlepuppy said:
Quite... Mugabe anyone? should we not have had a "no fly zone" there?
Click to expand...
The AU/UN would never agree. And Mugabe doesn't exactly have air assests.
 
littlepuppy said:
Quite... Mugabe anyone? should we not have had a "no fly zone" there?
Click to expand...

The intention of a no-fly zone is to stop Libya using planes and helicopters to attack the rebels, to give them a chance of fighting back. Since Mugabe never used air power against his opposition it wouldn't be appropriate in that situation.
 
Isn't it just a case of using a few Typhoons to shoot down some old Mig's? Along with Arab countries, the US and France? Seems fair enough when Gaddafi is bombing his own people.
 
scorza said:
The intention of a no-fly zone is to stop Libya using planes and helicopters to attack the rebels, to give them a chance of fighting back. Since Mugabe never used air power against his opposition it wouldn't be appropriate in that situation.
Click to expand...

I think you will find the remit is much greater than that.
 
Luseac said:
Isn't it just a case of using a few Typhoons to shoot down some old Mig's? Along with Arab countries, the US and France? Seems fair enough when Gaddafi is bombing his own people.
Click to expand...

hes not bombing his own people hes bombing a bunch of terrorists or rebels at best , what do they expect to happen when they try asnd take the country by force? the same thing would happen in the uk or america
 
This makes me laugh, we cut our armed forces because the Tories think they are too large, then we ask them to go into Libya and help that mess out... such an insult on our armed forces.

Stelly
 
arknor said:
hes not bombing his own people hes bombing a bunch of terrorists or rebels at best , what do they expect to happen when they try asnd take the country by force? the same thing would happen in the uk or america
Click to expand...
Yeah man! Those pesky 'terrorists' or 'rebels' that marched unarmed and got gunned down by mercenaries. They totally deserved to die with anti-aircraft rounds to the face.
He is slaughtering his own people, whichever way you look at it.

Stelly said:
This makes me laugh, we cut our armed forces because the Tories think they are too large, then we ask them to go into Libya and help that mess out... such an insult on our armed forces.
Click to expand...
Insult, or praise?
 
meghatronic said:
Somalia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Darfur, Sudan, Gulf War?, Rwanda, Sierra Leone etc…
Click to expand...

You conveniently mix your list up.

The British and French forces did not intervene in most of those places and where they did it was in as part of a UN force.

meghatronic said:
Take this to SC if you want a more reasoned argument.
Click to expand...

That's sounds like a typically stupid GD response and like an opt out to me. Condescending or what.
 
This is afghanistan and iraq all over again. :/ It starts with air support wont be long before a ground invasion.....

Have we learned NOTHING???? :confused:

But damn you to hell....hypocrite disgraceful politicians who have got the bare faced shame to say we are doing this for humanitarian reasons when there are plenty of countries who need help from their oppressive and murderous governments e.g. Bahrain.

When of course we wont go in there because UAE, Saudis and Bahrain are our buddies wooo! so they can murder to their hearts content.... unbelievable..:mad:
 
arknor said:
hes not bombing his own people hes bombing a bunch of terrorists or rebels at best , what do they expect to happen when they try asnd take the country by force? the same thing would happen in the uk or america
Click to expand...

Please, the UK would not start bombing its own people. It's clear Libya has had enough of that **** and we should support the voice of change.

Oh and for all those: Waaa it's all to do with oil! Sorts... Yes, I should hope it is. It is in our countries best interests to ensure an oil rich country remains stable and keeps on pumping that black gold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom