We appear to be at war with Libya

[David Johnson]

The news channels are reporting that a UN resolution that supports a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians has just been passed.

Apparently the implications are that UK planes amongst others, will be used to impose a no fly zone, presumably by laying waste Gaddafi's air force and air strips and if need be, attacking his heavy artillery and tanks in the situation where civilians' lives are threatened.

Obviously this will be viewed as an act of war by Libya.

Here we go again!

Cheers
D

[jimslip]

David, you sighed, "Here we go again!"

Not quite , I presume you are referring to the illegal war, waged on Iraq, by New Labour's warmonger, Tony Blair together with his insane pal, George W Bush?

The difference this time is that there have been no vetos of this Security Council resolution, which was actually put forward by Lebanon I believe. Also the Arab League are playing an active part.

Unlike New Labour's dirty little oil grabbing, war in Iraq, the sentiments and aims of this resolution are quite laudable and should be applauded.

My only fear is that it's too late to have any real effect.

[David Johnson]

Not quite , I presume you are referring to the illegal war, waged on Iraq, by New Labour's warmonger, Tony Blair together with his insane pal, George W Bush?

In short, no. I am not.

Though it is worth pointing out that in the warmongering stakes, William Hague was even more extreme than Blair when it came to Iraq.

When I say "here we go again" I am questioning why the UK is taking upon itself the role of one of the seemingly select group of world policemen.

In the last 20 years we have been involved in wars such as the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. Sometimes with the support of a UN resolution, sometimes without. Often against people we have been flogging arms to over the entire period.

Has Gaddafi become a ruthless dictator only recently? I don't think so. He has always been a ruthless dictator with a prediliction to murdering significant numbers of his own people.

Where's the logic in this process? Did we have a military involvement in Rwanda, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the Sudan where huge numbers of people have been slaughtered? Have we threatened the Burmese government about the slaughtering of its own people? Did we propose military intervention against Sri Lanka when they attacked the Tamils and slaughtered many. Are we due to bring a UN resolution attacking the use of Saudi troops in oppressing a Shia majority in Bahrain?

Are we going to get involved in every country's internal affairs when a war breaks out within their own borders?

As Afghanistan shows, it is very easy to get involved in a war, but can be very, very, difficult to extricate ourselves.

I can see the hypocrisy. What I can't see is the logic.

CHeers
D

[belfast_birty]

War and Logic are not mutually inclusive words.

[Jonone]

This is an observation you'll know:

'History repeats first as tragedy, then as farce'

But, it's not funny.

[frankthring]

Your reply to Jim Slip`s first blog, David, has a lot of sense in it.....wars
are like quicksands....
Jim`s point that we may be too late to reverse the Libyian dictator`s
advance is a good one too !
I notice that our Ambassador at the UN has stated that we should give
the people of Libya a chance to "determine their future" free of Gaddhafi.
But loathe Gaddhafi as I do , surely it is the right of each country within
its borders to determine its own fate if at all possible. Getting involved
in yet another war, even if we say we will not occupy the place, worries
me . Self-determination for a country should mean that - for good or bad.
Normally I am not a mega-cynic but I think the rich Western nations are
now terrified that if the dictator wins he may not be so friendly towards
them on renewing contracts...he may turn to China and other powers
for example.
Clearly the West thought for a time the rebels would win on their own.
Now it seems unlikely.
I am all for realpolitik, but when it again involves seeing British soldiers
die unnecessarily....or stretches our poor defence capability to breaking
point, then I am not in favour.

[Arginald Valleywater]

This pisses me off on several fronts.

1 The government are cutting budgets like fuck yet getting their fingers into another hideously expensive shooting match which has no effect on the Uk's security.

2 Let Libya sort our their own shit.

3 Let Arabs look after Arabs. If they want a no fly zone then get your own planes and pilots atr risk.

4 When I voted for Cameron I expected some common sense not VP Blair part two.

5 This will radicalise even more Muslims who will no doubt see Britain as their enemy and try and blow up innocent Brits who could not give a flying fuck about Libya.

[David Johnson]

I agree with much of your post.

If our government takes the view that it should intervene in every situation where there is an uprising against an undemocratic leader who is oppressing the people then I cannot see anything other than perpetual, never-ending war for the United Kingdom.

Jimslip points out that the Libyan intervention is backed by a UN sanction. So why is the cost of this going to be borne largely by the usual suspects, namely Britain and the USA with some help presumably from France?

And this from a government that told us in May that we were on the verge of bankruptcy. So not only have we underwritten the Irish EU bailout to the tune of ?6 billion, we are now about to embark on a potentially, hugely expensive foreign mission at a time when there has been enormous cuts to our defence spending on the assets needed to support war on multiple fronts.

Apart from that, how much do we know about the opposition groups in Libya? I seem to recall both the US and the British armed and trained the muhajeedin in Afghanistan to fight the Russian invasion in the 80's. These muhajeedin then transformed into what we now refer to as the Taliban. There are significant drawbacks to playing God, it would appear.

As I stated earlier when I listed the scenarios in the last 20 years when the UK was involved and then when it was not involved, I fail to see the underlying logic. Cynics might say that UK intervention is all about oil and contracts, but that was hardly the case in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Bosnia. And Libya only produces about 2% of the world's oil production.

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

You make some valid points.

"When I voted for Cameron I expected some common sense not VP Blair part two."

As I have stated elsewhere in a number of posts, Blair has been rightly vilified with regard to the Iraq war. However, the likes of William Hague were even more hawkish than Blair was in terms of his public statements leading up to the Iraq war.

If the Tories had been in power at the time, there would have been no need for Campbell's dodgy dossier because Hague was in favour of regime change irrespective of whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or not.

So I can't say that I am surprised by this as much as you are!

Cheers
D

[spider]

"presumably by laying waste Gaddafi's air force and air strips and if need be, attacking his heavy artillery and tanks in the situation where civilians' lives are threatened."


Never mind, Cameron and his mates are booking the plane tickeys now for when they need to go out to meet whoever takes over and sell them replacements.