Why are we attacking Libya?

M

Mancie

Pillar o' t' Community
Tackler
Just a question.. why are this government hell bent on spending bilions on the attack on Libya?... the so called defence of the civilians has yet again resulted in massive civilian deaths (surprise) it has turned into a free for all out bombng attack on Tripoli.. oh the good old days when millions of tories turned up at Whitehall against the war..were are you now?:)
 
Last edited:
How should we know? Probably the majority of ordinary folk don't understand and don't agree with it, just like they didn't agree with Tony and the Labour lot meekly trotting behind Bush into Iraq. When did they ever consult us about anything like this?
 
No idea, why don't you ask them... Maybe it's the same reason we went into Afghanistan and Iraq several years ago.
 
Maybe the allies should give the Israelis a couple of billion $ and carte blanche to sort out the Libyan problem. Should take about 6 days.:D And cheaper in the long run.:rolleyes: .... make it easier for Cameron to address the problems of the deficit and the debt.
 
You could have said the same about Iraq......

Maybe the oil fields in both Iraq and Libya have something to do with the decision by different governments to go in.
 
Crimes against fashion?

images


images


images
 
Last edited:
According to the Government, they did not wish to bring about a regime change. But they are not going to stop untill he is either dead or gone. So how does that work!!!!!!!!!:confused::confused::confused:
 
I wasn't aware that this country was doing anything, in Libya silly me thought it was a UN mission;)
 
Neil said:
They consult with us every 4 ish years when we vote for the MP we want to make decisions for us
Click to expand...

That's why I said "anything like this". When it comes to the really momentous decisions - going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, EU membership - both sides are singing from the same hymnsheet, so we get no say in it anyway.
 
Only MPs with children serving in the armed forces should be allowed to vote on the deployment of forces into battle zones but why the hell we've got involved in Libya I've no idea, as, I suspect, have most of our elected representatives, one thing I will say about Harold Wilson was the fact he kept us out of Vietnam
 
In theory, to defend innocents from possible atrocities their leader & those loyal to him may inflict upon them for daring to reject him & his henchmen. In reality trade & oil seem the more likely reasons although there will be much denial of this premise.
 
With a moment to spare I thought I'd answer for my vote which was for a 'no drive zone' and supporting the Arab League and UN resolution 1973.

First reason was there was a majority international consensus. China, Russia and African Congress not in support.

Secondly i supported a no drive zone when tanks heading for Benghazi told to 'show no mercy (Gadafi)' I did not get called but I did caution the weakness of aid, particularly fleeing refugees, caution towards supporting an alternative Govt and emphasising that Gadafi could not flee with what I described as a 'Golden Passport' to a non ICC country.

The vote was at the beginning and since then the Govt have failed to assist the humanitarian issue which could have happenned - people on flimsy boats - with Gadafis tanks approaching.

I hope that gives a fair and honest answer.
 
Well , the latest news tonight , CNN is reporting that Nato is directly using its forces to target Ghadafi as a legitimate military target (as a military commmander v legitimate head of State) under the UN resolution #1973
Hopefully the local MP or the local MEP (whoever he/she is) can explain the UK's and the European (Nato members) view that the death penalty (multiple air strikes possibly taking women and children out is ok for Ghadafi , but "verboten' within all EU member countries , even for the various 'butchers' from the former Yugoslavia.........seems to me a bit of hypocrisy and crocodile tears is going on here .....
Question , why is it ok to use the RAF to take Ghadafi out, without the benefit of a trial at the International Court of Justice in the Hague , but Mugabe is still allowed to continue his reign of terror without any indictment :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
steeljack said:
Question , why is it ok to use the RAF to take Ghadafi out, without the benefit of a trial at the International Court of Justice in the Hague , but Mugabe is still allowed to continue his reign of terror without any indictment :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

...black gold perhaps? ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top