Poll: Rebels rolling into Tripoli

[[TW]Fox]

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.

I agree - but should they? I know in an ideal world they should be able to tell us everything and be completely honest but I feel the world is far too complicated a place for this to be practical and reasonable.

The Iraq thing is the most frequently cited. It's now abundantly clear that Sadam had no WMD's but I feel the crucial issue there is that we were not told he did through a deliberately desire to fake an excuse but through a collection of blundering incompetence and crappy intelligence. It's still crap, and it's still hardly acceptable, but I feel the motive is very important.

In a straight fight between blatant deceit and incompetence I kinda prefer incompetence.

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.

And this is the stuff for which we'll never know the background. I'm sure backing Saddam made sense - at the time. The problem of course is that as we sit on the internet we can be armchair Presidents using the weapon of hindsight. It's all rather different at the decision table at the time, I'm sure.

I'm still not sure whether we should have been involved in Libya at all but I can at least see why we were - we'd have been condemed just as much had we sat back and watched him attacking people with fighter jets and said 'Not our problem' as we are now being for interevening. And yes - Syria - lots of flack for not getting involved but I'm probably one of the few who thinks we are not involved simply because we lack the capacity not because we lack the will.

Had the uprising not started I'm sure Gadaffi would have been less of a problem in the future than at any point in the past - relations were clearly improving - but once you start mowing people down for protesting using Jet Fighters you kinda cross into the point of no return.

Can you imagine if we'd bombed the rioters?!

 

[ubersonic]

Its kind of funny that were talking about releasing the frozen money to the new government of libya, helping them hunt down Gaddafi, arranging meetings with the government, letting them take over embassys, etc. When although Tripoli has fallen Gaddafis forces still control the majority of Libya, its hardly done and dusted, or maybe NATO plan on finishing this on the quiet.

 

[arknor]

did the rebels ever attack sirte ? they pushed all the way to sirte and then didnt want to attack it

 

[dirtydog]

Had the uprising not started I'm sure Gadaffi would have been less of a problem in the future than at any point in the past - relations were clearly improving - but once you start mowing people down for protesting using Jet Fighters you kinda cross into the point of no return.

There is no evidence that Gaddafi did these things, whereas there IS ample evidence that Syria is doing them.

There is always mass murder, genocide etc. going on in the world somewhere yet we only intervene in countries which have something we need, do you think that is a coincidence?

If Libya had no oil, or gold, or political importance, do you think NATO would have given a toss what Gaddafi may have done?

 

[ubersonic]

There is always mass murder, genocide etc. going on in the world somewhere yet we only intervene in countries which have something we need, do you think that is a coincidence?

If Libya had no oil, or gold, or political importance, do you think NATO would have given a toss what Gaddafi may have done?

Don't be stupid, there's nothing of value in Burma and were fighting like mad to get in there, oh wait no were not >.>

(for those who don't know anything about it Burma is a place that makes Libya/Syria/Iraq/etc look like a paradise, state-sanctioned mass genocide, state-sanctioned torture and rape by the military, government kidnapping of children to force into slave labour or the military)

 

[Danthus]

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 know that our intelligence services were working behind the scenes until they were captured. Funny how we went on to help the very people that captured our people.

 

[Stretch]

There is no evidence that Gaddafi did these things, whereas there IS ample evidence that Syria is doing them.

There is always mass murder, genocide etc. going on in the world somewhere yet we only intervene in countries which have something we need, do you think that is a coincidence?

If Libya had no oil, or gold, or political importance, do you think NATO would have given a toss what Gaddafi may have done?

Maybe NATO now feel after setting an example in Libya that the situation in Syria can be resolved without military intervention. It would have been easier to back Gaddafi and get what we "need".

There are other places in the world where terrible things going on. The difference in Libya is there was a credible opposition who were capable of putting things right with minimal outside help. Not many other places fit that description, including Syria.

 

[dirtydog]

Maybe NATO now feel after setting an example in Libya that the situation in Syria can be resolved without military intervention. It would have been easier to back Gaddafi and get what we "need".

There are other places in the world where terrible things going on. The difference in Libya is there was a credible opposition who were capable of putting things right with minimal outside help. Not many other places fit that description, including Syria.

Do you really think the THOUSANDS of Allied air attacks were 'minimal' help?!?

NO WAY would the 'rebels' have been able to oust Gaddafi without the help of NATO forces.

 

[Stretch]

Do you really think the THOUSANDS of Allied air attacks were 'minimal' help?!?

NO WAY would the 'rebels' have been able to oust Gaddafi without the help of NATO forces.

Yes, I think the air attacks are very minimal when compared with what they've achieve in such a short space of time.

If you tried to do the same thing in Syria you'd have another Iraq on your hands i.e. decades of sanctions and air strikes which achieve nothing but to make the situation worse for everyone.

 

[Danthus]

Yes, I think the air attacks are very minimal when compared with what they've achieve in such a short space of time.

If you tried to do the same thing in Syria you'd have another Iraq on your hands i.e. decades of sanctions and air strikes which achieve nothing but to make the situation worse for everyone.

We removed the ability of the Libyan forces to fight, hardly a small measure.

 

[StriderX]

Yes, I think the air attacks are very minimal when compared with what they've achieve in such a short space of time.

If you tried to do the same thing in Syria you'd have another Iraq on your hands i.e. decades of sanctions and air strikes which achieve nothing but to make the situation worse for everyone.

We cant go into Syria, it would be a massacre for our troops and Russia will veto any involvement.

They also wont make the same mistakes of their involvement pre-Iraq war, which is why they are literally arming the Syrians to protect Russian mineral/oil assets in the country.

 

[Danthus]

Maybe NATO now feel after setting an example in Libya that the situation in Syria can be resolved without military intervention. It would have been easier to back Gaddafi and get what we "need".

There are other places in the world where terrible things going on. The difference in Libya is there was a credible opposition who were capable of putting things right with minimal outside help. Not many other places fit that description, including Syria.

There are three factions that all want a piece of the pie. We happen to support the NTC.

 

[Stretch]

We removed the ability of the Libyan forces to fight, hardly a small measure.

I'm not saying the assistance wasn't critical to the success of rebellion. I'm saying it was very small in comparison to what would be needed to achieve similar results in other countries.

 

[dirtydog]

Yes, I think the air attacks are very minimal when compared with what they've achieve in such a short space of time.

If you tried to do the same thing in Syria you'd have another Iraq on your hands i.e. decades of sanctions and air strikes which achieve nothing but to make the situation worse for everyone.

LOL

 

[dirtydog]

I'm not saying the assistance wasn't critical to the success of rebellion. I'm saying it was very small in comparison to what would be need to achieve similar results in other countries.

Without us the 'rebels' would have been wiped out and rightly so, they don't represent the Libyan people, they represent their own factions.

 

[ubersonic]

Yes, I think the air attacks are very minimal when compared with what they've achieve in such a short space of time.

If you tried to do the same thing in Syria you'd have another Iraq on your hands i.e. decades of sanctions and air strikes which achieve nothing but to make the situation worse for everyone.

What? do you understand that if NATO pulled out right now loyalist forces could just take back Tripoli like that *snaps fingers* the reason the rebels have advanced so well is because they can move their light/heavy armour (pickups/tanks) and their artillery whereas Gaddafi's just gets bombed if it moves out into the open. If it wasn't for the air support they would never have made it out of Benghazi. Its easy to advance when you have NATO air striking any resistance ahead of you...

 

[Stretch]

Without us the 'rebels' would have been wiped out and rightly so, they don't represent the Libyan people, they represent their own factions.

They're more representative of the Libyan people than Colonel Gaddafi. They also bring the possibility of giving the Libyan people more say in the future. A better situation all round I think.

What? do you understand that if NATO pulled out right now loyalist forces could just take back Tripoli like that *snaps fingers* the reason the rebels have advanced so well is because they can move their light/heavy armour (pickups/tanks) and their artillery whereas Gaddafi's just gets bombed if it moves out into the open. If it wasn't for the air support they would never have made it out of Benghazi. Its easy to advance when you have NATO air striking any resistance ahead of you...

Yes, I understand.

Do you understand how small this campaign was compared with the others we've been involved with in recent years.

 

[Skepticx]

I think the problem with us getting involved was that humanitarian was not the only reason, *Cough* OIL. but tbh we did need to step in and help, what are we if we promote democracy and then stay silent when a nation is fighting for it.

 

[dirtydog]

They're more representative of the Libyan people than Colonel Gaddafi. They also bring the possibility of giving the Libyan people more say in the future. A better situation all round I think.

Libya won't be any better off than it was under Gaddafi, that is the tragedy of all this for the Libyan people.

Do you understand how small this campaign was compared with the others we've been involved with in recent years.

I do, but then Libya has a much smaller population and (populated) land area, and the 'enemy' (ie. the legitimate Libyan government and its forces) have been much easier to locate and destroy than say the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

[dirtydog]

I think the problem with us getting involved was that humanitarian was not the only reason, *Cough* OIL. but tbh we did need to step in and help, what are we if we promote democracy and then stay silent when a nation is fighting for it.

What are we? Hypocrites. Why don't we 'step in' in every such situation then? Why do we only intervene when it is financially or politically expedient to do so.

Our interventions aren't motivated by principle, they are motivated by self interest.

You might think there is nothing wrong with this. I might even agree. But for god's sake, let's be bloody adult and open about our motivations instead of peddling the BS about it being for freedom and democracy and all that garbage.