Egyptian revolution gathers pace.

[LeazesMag 0]

why do you use what happens in the UK as justification for events elsewhere ? Are you referring to arms dealers ? This is just the way of the world, you could call what they deal in to be "defence" too because like it or not, not everybody arms themselves for deliberate provocative or aggressive intentions. The world is full of evil bastards mate, not everybody lives in a sort of happy fairyland, you have to take account of human nature, and people are different all over the world.

 

The world is full or rich people too, you might be envious, so am I, but it seems to eat you up. Gaddafi is a cunt of the highest order, like Saddam was. End of story.

 

Not arms dealers - the people with "old" money who have no ethics and who have always done business with the evil scum of the world while getting their patsy politicians to fool people with talk of morality and law.

 

If you're so realistic about there being so many scum in the world why do you think we should interfere in anything? - surely more scum will just appear elsewhere so why bother - after all the arms dealers always need Saddams/Gadaffis/customers.

 

so we just let everybody get on with whatever they like ?

 

In other words, anarchy ?

 

Good solution that like.....

 

It will be interesting to see how long Gaddafi takes the piss out of the world like Saddam did, of course thats perfect grounds for allowing it to go on for years and running away from it.

[NJS 3992]

why do you use what happens in the UK as justification for events elsewhere ? Are you referring to arms dealers ? This is just the way of the world, you could call what they deal in to be "defence" too because like it or not, not everybody arms themselves for deliberate provocative or aggressive intentions. The world is full of evil bastards mate, not everybody lives in a sort of happy fairyland, you have to take account of human nature, and people are different all over the world.

 

The world is full or rich people too, you might be envious, so am I, but it seems to eat you up. Gaddafi is a cunt of the highest order, like Saddam was. End of story.

 

Not arms dealers - the people with "old" money who have no ethics and who have always done business with the evil scum of the world while getting their patsy politicians to fool people with talk of morality and law.

 

If you're so realistic about there being so many scum in the world why do you think we should interfere in anything? - surely more scum will just appear elsewhere so why bother - after all the arms dealers always need Saddams/Gadaffis/customers.

 

so we just let everybody get on with whatever they like ?

 

In other words, anarchy ?

 

Good solution that like.....

 

It will be interesting to see how long Gaddafi takes the piss out of the world like Saddam did, of course thats perfect grounds for allowing it to go on for years and running away from it.

 

No being idealistic I think we should at least try and sort scum out. That however does mean not selling arms to people like Saddam and countless other dictators, it means not trading with people like Mugabe and it also means not taking their money when they visit London looking for property. The invasion of Iraq didn't bother me because the bloke was a bastard - it bothered me because for decades he was seen as a "friend" and I think deciding to change that definition is full of shit.

 

You on the other hand keep saying that the world is full of evil and most foreigners fall into that category - that's much more fatalist and suggests a "Why bother?" attitude which is what I was getting at.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Nice to see a British prime minister leading the world rather than acting like Americas poodle.

 

As someone once said, best Prime Minister in my lifetime.

[Renton 18015]

Nice to see a British prime minister leading the world rather than acting like Americas poodle.

 

As someone once said, best Prime Minister in my lifetime.

 

Like Brown did during the global banking crisis you mean?

 

Fair play to Cameron though, he's played this one well.

[LeazesMag 0]

why do you use what happens in the UK as justification for events elsewhere ? Are you referring to arms dealers ? This is just the way of the world, you could call what they deal in to be "defence" too because like it or not, not everybody arms themselves for deliberate provocative or aggressive intentions. The world is full of evil bastards mate, not everybody lives in a sort of happy fairyland, you have to take account of human nature, and people are different all over the world.

 

The world is full or rich people too, you might be envious, so am I, but it seems to eat you up. Gaddafi is a cunt of the highest order, like Saddam was. End of story.

 

Not arms dealers - the people with "old" money who have no ethics and who have always done business with the evil scum of the world while getting their patsy politicians to fool people with talk of morality and law.

 

If you're so realistic about there being so many scum in the world why do you think we should interfere in anything? - surely more scum will just appear elsewhere so why bother - after all the arms dealers always need Saddams/Gadaffis/customers.

 

so we just let everybody get on with whatever they like ?

 

In other words, anarchy ?

 

Good solution that like.....

 

It will be interesting to see how long Gaddafi takes the piss out of the world like Saddam did, of course thats perfect grounds for allowing it to go on for years and running away from it.

 

No being idealistic I think we should at least try and sort scum out. That however does mean not selling arms to people like Saddam and countless other dictators, it means not trading with people like Mugabe and it also means not taking their money when they visit London looking for property. The invasion of Iraq didn't bother me because the bloke was a bastard - it bothered me because for decades he was seen as a "friend" and I think deciding to change that definition is full of shit.

 

You on the other hand keep saying that the world is full of evil and most foreigners fall into that category - that's much more fatalist and suggests a "Why bother?" attitude which is what I was getting at.

 

Well, your first sentence is one I agree with and always have. The same as the next post from CT. Nobody wants to see our servicemen get killed and we shouldn't have to be the worlds policeman, along with the yanks, but nobody else bothers which is the whole point about us sending troops in, with or without UN approval. The UN is a useless, crap organisation. It is dominated by leaders etc from small banana republics, [like FIFA in the football world], which is why they do nothing about anything other than what concerns their own self interest. I think more people should accept that this is the case, in the real world, and try to take some sort of pride that we are the ones attempting to do something, as CT says, its good to see Cameron taking the lead although of course its difficult to call this sort of thing because it isn't the way it should be.

 

The arms industry is just an industry like any other one, it exists and you just have to live with it. You can't blame people for making money, and some states/countries will always harbour aggressive instincts.

 

We are the worlds mugs sometimes, no doubt about it, in more ways than one. I don't think we should be criticised for at least making the decision to take the lead and do something, rather than allow these problems to get bigger and continue. We don't know how Libya will work out, nobody does, but doing nothing is no good to anybody, because eventually something will have to be done.

Edited March 18, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 3992]

why do you use what happens in the UK as justification for events elsewhere ? Are you referring to arms dealers ? This is just the way of the world, you could call what they deal in to be "defence" too because like it or not, not everybody arms themselves for deliberate provocative or aggressive intentions. The world is full of evil bastards mate, not everybody lives in a sort of happy fairyland, you have to take account of human nature, and people are different all over the world.

 

The world is full or rich people too, you might be envious, so am I, but it seems to eat you up. Gaddafi is a cunt of the highest order, like Saddam was. End of story.

 

Not arms dealers - the people with "old" money who have no ethics and who have always done business with the evil scum of the world while getting their patsy politicians to fool people with talk of morality and law.

 

If you're so realistic about there being so many scum in the world why do you think we should interfere in anything? - surely more scum will just appear elsewhere so why bother - after all the arms dealers always need Saddams/Gadaffis/customers.

 

so we just let everybody get on with whatever they like ?

 

In other words, anarchy ?

 

Good solution that like.....

 

It will be interesting to see how long Gaddafi takes the piss out of the world like Saddam did, of course thats perfect grounds for allowing it to go on for years and running away from it.

 

No being idealistic I think we should at least try and sort scum out. That however does mean not selling arms to people like Saddam and countless other dictators, it means not trading with people like Mugabe and it also means not taking their money when they visit London looking for property. The invasion of Iraq didn't bother me because the bloke was a bastard - it bothered me because for decades he was seen as a "friend" and I think deciding to change that definition is full of shit.

 

You on the other hand keep saying that the world is full of evil and most foreigners fall into that category - that's much more fatalist and suggests a "Why bother?" attitude which is what I was getting at.

 

Well, your first sentence is one I agree with and always have. The same as the next post from CT. Nobody wants to see our servicemen get killed and we shouldn't have to be the worlds policeman, along with the yanks, but nobody else bothers which is the whole point about us sending troops in, with or without UN approval. The UN is a useless, crap organisation. It is dominated by leaders etc from small banana republics, [like FIFA in the football world], which is why they do nothing about anything other than what concerns their own self interest. I think more people should accept that this is the case, in the real world, and try to take some sort of pride that we are the ones attempting to do something, as CT says, its good to see Cameron taking the lead although of course its difficult to call this sort of thing because it isn't the way it should be.

 

The arms industry is just an industry like any other one, it exists and you just have to live with it. You can't blame people for making money, and some states/countries will always harbour aggressive instincts.

 

We are the worlds mugs sometimes, no doubt about it, in more ways than one. I don't think we should be criticised for at least making the decision to take the lead and do something, rather than allow these problems to get bigger and continue. We don't know how Libya will work out, nobody does, but doing nothing is no good to anybody, because eventually something will have to be done.

 

 

The thing is the arms industry isn't just like any other though - its massively subsidised (and actually doesn't make much money at all) because the government uses it politically to make friends with countries - fair enough if they are decent countries, unfortunately nearly all the decent countries make their own weapons so you end up selling to Saudi, Iraq and the rest. You wouldn't have to go into places and put lives at risk if these people weren't armed in the first place.

 

I know the argument goes if we didn't supply them someone else would which is true but you have to start somewhere and as I also mentioned it makes you less of a hypocrite if you don't end up fighting against people armed with your weapons.

 

I honestly think there would have been more support for the Iraq war if it had been sold simply as a moral action rather than do it by lying - especially about our past relations. To quote Bill Hicks: "How did you know he had all these weapons? - we looked at the receipts".

[Renton 18015]

The UN is a useless, crap organisation. It is dominated by leaders etc from small banana republics, [like FIFA in the football world], which is why they do nothing about anything other than what concerns their own self interest..

 

That may be true but do you seriously think the UK ever acts for causes which isn't in our own self interest?

 

Regarding Libya, Cameron has rightly pointed out that this isn't another Iraq precisley because there is a UN mandate this time. Also, the French are taking a leading role along with us which seems to have escaped your attention. Of course, both the UK and France have massive vested interests in Libya which is no coincidence.

[Park Life 71]

The UN is a useless, crap organisation. It is dominated by leaders etc from small banana republics, [like FIFA in the football world], which is why they do nothing about anything other than what concerns their own self interest..

 

That may be true but do you seriously think the UK ever acts for causes which isn't in our own self interest?

 

Regarding Libya, Cameron has rightly pointed out that this isn't another Iraq precisley because there is a UN mandate this time. Also, the French are taking a leading role along with us which seems to have escaped your attention. Of course, both the UK and France have massive vested interests in Libya which is no coincidence.

 

Yup.

 

I still remember seeing Darth Blairs rosey little cheeks cuddling up to Gadaffee a couple of years back.

[LeazesMag 0]

why do you use what happens in the UK as justification for events elsewhere ? Are you referring to arms dealers ? This is just the way of the world, you could call what they deal in to be "defence" too because like it or not, not everybody arms themselves for deliberate provocative or aggressive intentions. The world is full of evil bastards mate, not everybody lives in a sort of happy fairyland, you have to take account of human nature, and people are different all over the world.

 

The world is full or rich people too, you might be envious, so am I, but it seems to eat you up. Gaddafi is a cunt of the highest order, like Saddam was. End of story.

 

Not arms dealers - the people with "old" money who have no ethics and who have always done business with the evil scum of the world while getting their patsy politicians to fool people with talk of morality and law.

 

If you're so realistic about there being so many scum in the world why do you think we should interfere in anything? - surely more scum will just appear elsewhere so why bother - after all the arms dealers always need Saddams/Gadaffis/customers.

 

so we just let everybody get on with whatever they like ?

 

In other words, anarchy ?

 

Good solution that like.....

 

It will be interesting to see how long Gaddafi takes the piss out of the world like Saddam did, of course thats perfect grounds for allowing it to go on for years and running away from it.

 

No being idealistic I think we should at least try and sort scum out. That however does mean not selling arms to people like Saddam and countless other dictators, it means not trading with people like Mugabe and it also means not taking their money when they visit London looking for property. The invasion of Iraq didn't bother me because the bloke was a bastard - it bothered me because for decades he was seen as a "friend" and I think deciding to change that definition is full of shit.

 

You on the other hand keep saying that the world is full of evil and most foreigners fall into that category - that's much more fatalist and suggests a "Why bother?" attitude which is what I was getting at.

 

Well, your first sentence is one I agree with and always have. The same as the next post from CT. Nobody wants to see our servicemen get killed and we shouldn't have to be the worlds policeman, along with the yanks, but nobody else bothers which is the whole point about us sending troops in, with or without UN approval. The UN is a useless, crap organisation. It is dominated by leaders etc from small banana republics, [like FIFA in the football world], which is why they do nothing about anything other than what concerns their own self interest. I think more people should accept that this is the case, in the real world, and try to take some sort of pride that we are the ones attempting to do something, as CT says, its good to see Cameron taking the lead although of course its difficult to call this sort of thing because it isn't the way it should be.

 

The arms industry is just an industry like any other one, it exists and you just have to live with it. You can't blame people for making money, and some states/countries will always harbour aggressive instincts.

 

We are the worlds mugs sometimes, no doubt about it, in more ways than one. I don't think we should be criticised for at least making the decision to take the lead and do something, rather than allow these problems to get bigger and continue. We don't know how Libya will work out, nobody does, but doing nothing is no good to anybody, because eventually something will have to be done.

 

 

The thing is the arms industry isn't just like any other though - its massively subsidised (and actually doesn't make much money at all) because the government uses it politically to make friends with countries - fair enough if they are decent countries, unfortunately nearly all the decent countries make their own weapons so you end up selling to Saudi, Iraq and the rest. You wouldn't have to go into places and put lives at risk if these people weren't armed in the first place.

 

I know the argument goes if we didn't supply them someone else would which is true but you have to start somewhere and as I also mentioned it makes you less of a hypocrite if you don't end up fighting against people armed with your weapons.

 

I honestly think there would have been more support for the Iraq war if it had been sold simply as a moral action rather than do it by lying - especially about our past relations. To quote Bill Hicks: "How did you know he had all these weapons? - we looked at the receipts".

 

sometimes there are strategies involved though. Iran is a potential nuthouse, but if they don't get on with a neighbour, ie Iraq, it is best to allow things to stay the way they are while they are a deterrent to each other .... its a balancing act, this is why arms are provided to certain countries and governments look on. The Iraq war should have been settled first time round, when they invaded Kuwait we had to go in, but Saddam got off the hook and after that it was always going to be the case that we would have to go in again because he was never going to play the good guy and adhere to those sanctions and conditions.

[LeazesMag 0]

The UN is a useless, crap organisation. It is dominated by leaders etc from small banana republics, [like FIFA in the football world], which is why they do nothing about anything other than what concerns their own self interest..

 

That may be true but do you seriously think the UK ever acts for causes which isn't in our own self interest?

 

Regarding Libya, Cameron has rightly pointed out that this isn't another Iraq precisley because there is a UN mandate this time. Also, the French are taking a leading role along with us which seems to have escaped your attention. Of course, both the UK and France have massive vested interests in Libya which is no coincidence.

 

of course .... not sure how to phrase this ..... we can see, or are prepared to act on ? the morals of right and wrong more than others who have always took a back seat ???? [trying to think of a better way to put it....] and pick up the spoils at the end....as said, Cameron has taken a lead, good for him, and if France plays an equal part then good for them for once too. I would hope others would do the same, if they do there is more chance of success, and quickly, hopefully.

 

Ideally, more countries would have some backbone when these things happen.

Edited March 18, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Park Life 71]

The french are basically doing it cause Sarcastic lost votes by not intervining in Tunisia or morocco or wherever it was.

[Billy Castell 0]

Gaddafi will probably nail the rebels one day. He'll be all meek until the world needs his oil and/or is distarcted by other events. Then he'll quietly get some Chinese weapons and finish the job. You don't remain in power for 40 years by playing the short game.

[@yourservice 67]

It's raining missiles in Libya right now.

 

[Ayatollah Hermione 12866]

*Puts on Black Sabbath*

[ChezGiven 0]

De Facto Partition Of Libya Coming?

 

The new war in Libya is so new and fluid that it is hard to determine what is really going on or will go on, but I think a highly likely outcome will be a de facto partition of Libya. While the mandates from the Arab League and the UN Security Council only supported a no-fly zone to prevent Qaddafi's forces from killing civilians from the air, and this is the official position of the US, many leaders in the US and more openly in France and Britain, which are very prominent in the military action, have stated that the goal is to support the rebels and remove Qaddafi, with both Obama and Clinton effectively supporting this with statements that Qaddafi has lost legitimacy and should step down. Some observations I have not seen made elsewhere follow.

 

That a partition that could become semi-permanent may be the result arises from the obvious possibility of a military stalemate. Without the move to no-fly zone, it is likely that Qaddafi's forces would have fully defeated the rebels, having reached the outskirts of Benghazi, the rebel capital, after having retaken most of the major oil towns to the southwest of Benghazi, although one major city in the west, Misurata, continues to be held by the rebels. Even with his air force subdued, Qaddafi retains the superior edge in ground military force. It is unlikely the rebels can defeat him without outside ground support, and it is increasingly looking like there will be no active support from any Arab country in the air, and much less likely on the ground. Obama has stated the US will not deploy (and there will be major resistance to doing so from the US military), leaving only maybe the Brits and French to do so, but my guess is they will be reluctant to do so in sufficient force to overthrow Qaddafi without the US or Arabs involved, and parts of the rest of the world becomning more critical (both Russia and China have expressed "regret" over this new military action, despite their abstention in the UNSC vote because of the Arab League resolution). So, a likely outcome is a military stalemate after some further shuffling of the positions on the ground.

 

If Misurata falls to to Qaddafi's forces while the rebels control much of the east, what will emerge will look like the longstanding historical division between Tripolitania in the west and Cyrenaica in the east, the names of Roman provinces in those areas (a third province in the southwest, Fezzan, is essentially part of the western zone). Throughout most of history they have not been jointly ruled, and when they have, they have been distinct provinces. There are deep differences, with the population in the west having a substantial Berber element (Qaddafi and his tribe are actually "Arabized Berbers," that is, ethnic Berbers who speak Arabic). The east has often been ruled by whomever was ruling Egypt (and Egypt is the only Arab nation that might or could enter the action on the ground, and the current Arab League president, Amr Moussa, who is the main person responsible for their resolution, is running for President of Egypt and strongly supports the rebels). There have even been religious differences, with the east basically Maliki Sunnis, whereas there continues to be a Khariji Muslim community in the west, mostly concentrated in the Berber areas. More broadly, Tripolitania in the west has had long periods of independence, either de facto or de jure, including during the "Barbary pirates" period when the US warred with Tripolitania in the early 1800s, a period when Cyrenaica was under Ottoman rule (the Ottomans got back into Tripolitania later in the 1800s).

 

There is a further warning here having to do with history, specifically the fact that among the leading countries involved in this military action are the three European countries that ruled parts of modern Libya prior to its independence as a kingdom in 1951, namely Italy, France, and the UK. Italy began taking over Libya from the Ottomans in a war in 1911-12, although it was not able to subdue Tripolitania until 1923, with Libya as a unified entity under Italian rule declared in 1934. During WW II, the French came in from Algeria and took Fezzan in the southwest in 1943, while the British took control of the coastal provinces in warfare with Germany during 1941-42. Italy formally surrendered control in 1947, and the UN established a mandate under the joint control of France and Britain. In 1949, the British established a kingdom in Cyrenaica (capital, Benghazi) under Idris al-Senussi. When Libya was granted full independence in 1951, Idris was made king of all of Libya, but with the capital in Tripoli, triggering much resentment in the west of this rule by easterners, an important point in the current situation. In 1963 the old provinces were officially dissolved in favor of smaller administrative units. Qaddafi seized control in 1969, and while he is a despicable leader and human being whom I would love to see overthrown, when he falls back on old pan-Arab anti-colonialist rhetoric, he is not entirely talking through his hat in the eyes of many obervers around the world who know their history.

 

POSTED BY BARKLEY ROSSER

 

http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2011/03/de-...bya-coming.html

[Park Life 71]

Think the Americans are desperate to take a back seat in this one after having let loose the Tomahawks.

[LeazesMag 0]

the documentary about the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher is about to start

[Billy Castell 0]

That mad old cunt has been a 'viable target' for almost 30 years. Use the CIA, Mi5 etc. to arm and train the rebels so they can at least match the professional army. Hopefully we wouldn't be arming more Bin Laden types, or helping a budding Gadaffi gain power.

 

Anyway, Gaddafi and his family must be eliminated.

[Park Life 71]

That mad old cunt has been a 'viable target' for almost 30 years. Use the CIA, Mi5 etc. to arm and train the rebels so they can at least match the professional army. Hopefully we wouldn't be arming more Bin Laden types, or helping a budding Gadaffi gain power.

 

Anyway, Gaddafi and his family must be eliminated.

 

Think it's only a matter of days now.

[LeazesMag 0]

That mad old cunt has been a 'viable target' for almost 30 years. Use the CIA, Mi5 etc. to arm and train the rebels so they can at least match the professional army. Hopefully we wouldn't be arming more Bin Laden types, or helping a budding Gadaffi gain power.

 

Anyway, Gaddafi and his family must be eliminated.

 

Think it's only a matter of days now.

 

shame it wasn't 30 years ago. Those troops should have stormed that embassy in 1984 too and killed everybody that was in there.

[Happy Face 29]

Going to be a canny cat and mouse game this.

 

Very clever of him to take the sting out of the resolution by basically agreeing to everything.

 

Be interesting to see if we go ahead with air strikes or whether this turns into a drawn out long game.

 

..... attempting to play the same game as Saddam did and laugh at everybody for being too timid like he did .....

 

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

 

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

 

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

 

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

 

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

 

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

 

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

 

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

 

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

 

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

 

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

[ChezGiven 0]

Obama wants to keep US involvement minimal but the Pentagon are like Pooh Bear with his hand in the jar of honey.

 

I do thinks its a bit worrying that there are so many mixed messages on what the UN is meant to be doing though.

[ChezGiven 0]

Number 8 is wrong too.

[LeazesMag 0]

Going to be a canny cat and mouse game this.

 

Very clever of him to take the sting out of the resolution by basically agreeing to everything.

 

Be interesting to see if we go ahead with air strikes or whether this turns into a drawn out long game.

 

..... attempting to play the same game as Saddam did and laugh at everybody for being too timid like he did .....

 

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

 

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

 

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

 

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

 

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

 

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

 

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

 

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

 

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

 

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

 

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

 

where did you copy and paste that from ?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Going to be a canny cat and mouse game this.

 

Very clever of him to take the sting out of the resolution by basically agreeing to everything.

 

Be interesting to see if we go ahead with air strikes or whether this turns into a drawn out long game.

 

..... attempting to play the same game as Saddam did and laugh at everybody for being too timid like he did .....

 

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

 

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

 

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

 

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

 

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

 

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

 

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

 

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

 

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

 

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

 

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

 

 

Not for one minute saying Im fully upto speed on all the facts re this, but so much of the above seems mis-leading at best.

 

80 or 90 % of Libyans had risen up? I dont remember that. The scenes of anti government demonstration were nowhere near as comparible as what went on in Egypt. Were there any demonstrations at all in the capitol, Tripoli?

 

The country has always been a collection of two main tribes. One in the east and one in the west. It seems that the unrest was mainly in the east not west (or vice versa).

 

When the "peaceful" protests didnt catch on, as in Egypt, they then armed themselves, became rebels and that is mainly when the fighting started.

 

The vast majority of the Libyan people demanded a no fly zone. Really? facts / figures?

 

The Arab league asked for a no fly zone to protect civilians, not military strikes, hence the current wobbling going on.

 

Point 5. The word envisage should tell you all you need to know.

 

Point 8. It is indeed a tribal fight taking place.

 

 

The bottom line has to be "why the UK once again". Could the Arab league, with their billions of wealth and armoury bought from the west not sorted this out themselves. They have enough warplanes to do it.

 

Then you have all the usual arguments about why Libya and not yemen or Rwanda etc etc.

 

I think opinion polls today showing 35% ish support reflect a lot of peoples thoughts that we are basically sick of our governments trying to be the worlds policeman.

 

Can only see this ending in the splitting of Libya into two and years and years of wasted billions of uk money trying to sort the mess out.