egafd.com

Sam,

Okay in summary, you can't add anything in terms of suggestions as to what the UK should do - the original point of the thread.

Not a criticism, but it confirms what I already knew.

Cheers
D

Sam,

Do you believe that it is essential that any point that is made in an earlier post must be repeated in a subsequent post?

I think this would make these conversations unbelievably repetitive.

For example,

My quote
I use the phrase "appear to be totally unable".

Your reply
Yes, but why does it appear so? Would a more accurate statement be 'they appear to be totally unable when following UN guidelines.'?

There is absolutely no reason to add "following UN guidelines" because we have already agreed that point about the UK following UN guidelines in an earlier post, here is your earlier comment

"The points you make, though, are valid. In going down the UN route we've put ourselves into a difficult situation if the no-fly zones alone cannot stop Gaddafi slaughtering his opponents.

Then when I state that the UK appear totally unable to stop the killing in Misrata, you reply "Unable? No. Apprehensive or unwilling? Yes.".

The given here is the UN resolution. The "appear unable" is then absolutely correct within my point i.e. the constraints of the UN resolution, which you have already accepted.

So when I then take the time to explain why the "unable" is correct by pointing out the situation with snipers, you have the gall to state,

"Air strikes cannot stop snipers within a city. At least not without risking massive civilian casualties. But I never argued otherwise"

Of course you haven't argued it, otherwise I wouldn't be bothering to repeat your point about sniping! I am explaining to you specifically why the problem in Misrata is occuring.

This might pass for sharp debating in Sheffield. Personally it strikes me as a tad tedious to be honest.

Cheers
D

[quote]Sam,

Okay in summary, you can't add anything in terms of suggestions as to what the UK should do - the original point of the thread.

Not a criticism, but it confirms what I already knew.[/quote]

I thought I made it very clear what my suggestion/idea/opinion was. Fuck the UN and oust Gaddafi with a full land war (after liaising with the various anti-Gaddafi factions and finding out if this is what they want, of course).

I hope that clears up any confusion.

I have a couple of friends in Libya now,trying to offer some assistance to the rebels.Their shortcomings are well known,as are those of Col G's army.Their take is that the rebels have no idea of defence,only running away.They are trying to get some defensive positions built and manned.However,they do not feel,at present,that the rebels will prevail,unless there are wholesale defections,from Col G's army,NATO airstikes notwithstanding.

[quote]Sam,

Do you believe that it is essential that any point that is made in an earlier post must be repeated in a subsequent post?[/quote]

No. It is sometimes helpful.

[quote]I think this would make these conversations unbelievably repetitive.[/quote]

Repetitive? This from a man who's bored the whole of the bgafd (left and right leaning) for over a year, banging on about the same subject? When you've time take a gander into the mirror, mate.

[quote]My quote
I use the phrase "appear to be totally unable".

Your reply
Yes, but why does it appear so? Would a more accurate statement be 'they appear to be totally unable when following UN guidelines.'?

There is absolutely no reason to add "following UN guidelines" because we have already agreed that point about the UK following UN guidelines in an earlier post, here is your earlier comment:

"The points you make, though, are valid. In going down the UN route we've put ourselves into a difficult situation if the no-fly zones alone cannot stop Gaddafi slaughtering his opponents.[/quote]

I'm sorry if you think I'm over-clarifying every point. Don't like it? Tough. In my defence we were three posts (each) down from the post where I said you'd made valid points re following UN guidelines. This, to me, doesn't make it clear if you was making your 'appear unable to' point still within that context or more generally Especially when it was your first point in reply to my 'shall we just sit back and watch' point. See below:

I said: "Removing him would be seen as another invasion. Doing what we're doing now may prolong a war and will mean more money and resources wasted, or even leave an almost indefinite stalemate, or sit back and watched while he murdered his own people like we did with Saddam and the Kurds and Rwanda."

You replied to the above: "What we know is that he is murdering his own people in substantial numbers in Misrata, for example, anyway. And the Allies appear to be totally unable to stop that."

Let me give you my take on this exchange: I was just giving you my opinion on how I thought certain things would be perceived. You replied with 'he's murdering his own people anyway'. This gave me the impression that you didn't want to get involved at all, militarily. This is a directly opposite view to my own and I made that clear in my very first post with, "I would have had French, UK, US and anyone else's troops in and ousted Gaddafi and put two fingers up to the UN. But that's just me.".

We'd stopped talking about the UN and seemed to be discussing our opinions on what we wanted to happen (I gave my opinion in accordance with your request in the title of this thread). If we were fully discussing working within the constraints of UN guidelines the context would have been clear and I wouldn't have disagreed. Since it wasn't clear I thought I'd clarify what I think the allied forces are able and unable to do. Hence the 'apprehensive and unwilling' bit. It was clear how I took your statement later with the suggestion, "Would a more accurate statement be 'they appear to be totally unable when following UN guidelines.'?"

If you had a problem with me missing the context your statement 'appear to be unable' was in you didn't mention it in the reply directly after I'd asked you if a more accurate statement would be 'they appear to be totally unable when following UN guidelines.'

Your reply was: "Sam,

Okay in summary, you can't add anything in terms of suggestions as to what the UK should do - the original point of the thread.

Not a criticism, but it confirms what I already knew."

This ignored the fact that I HAD offered a suggestion. In my very first post in fact. You say it wasn't a criticism, but we both know it was an attempt at one. Why do I think this? Well, because that post was at 22:19. At 22:34 on the same day you posted the post I'm now replying to. The one saying I'm repetitive; the one where you're implying I can't follow a complex conversation; the one having a dig about the debating skills of people that happen to live/work around my geographical location.

Since most of your political posts have a definite intent to rile certain forumites, and since they really are so repetitive and tedious, I have kept myself away, not because I don't have anything to say, but because I know you feed off ridiculing others. Since this thread was about the Libyan conflict, and since you'd asked for ideas I was polite enough (maybe naive enough) to offer my humble opinion and discuss where we may differ. What I end up with is implications of stupidity, sarcastic remarks about where I happen to be living, and a general underlying theme of arrogance.

Did you request peoples' opinions on Libya just to find opportunity to undermine them? We all take chunks out of each other during heated arguments and I'm in no way innocent in this, but I do get a strong feeling you either plan to do just that or it comes so naturally to you you don't notice.

Please read through our whole debate again and be honest. Do you think you've been the slightest bit twattish?

Sam.

Draw a line in the sand and then bomb the shit out of anything to the west of it.

Err, I rest my case.

Cheers
D

"I thought I made it very clear what my suggestion/idea/opinion was. Fuck the UN and oust Gaddafi with a full land war (after liaising with the various anti-Gaddafi factions and finding out if this is what they want, of course).

I hope that clears up any confusion."

Err, no confusion on my part. I understand your point completely.

This is why I stated
"Okay in summary, you can't add anything in terms of suggestions as to what the UK should do - the original point of the thread."

using the word "add" in case there were any new ideas you had, not already expressed.

Cheers
D

Its messy David, messy.....personally I would rather we had never
become involved and let the Libyans sort their own internal affairs
out. The problem with that, I am aware, is that Libya has been ruled
for too long by a cruel and unpredictable despot.....once the West
started supporting the "rebels" who knows what could happen if this
nutter survives and wins (precious oil going to China and not the West,
or a training ground for anti Western jihadists perhaps ?)
Now we are simply bent on a course to destroy him. Because to see him
win is a nightmarish alternative !
But now we "act" at the behest of the UN with other countries....and
usually in a military sense the UN (as in Rwanda or Yugoslavia) is just
not ballsy enough to handle military events.
Gaddhafi, I fancy, will hang in there but eventually have to go. More
innocents will die. Messy, very messy....

Agreed, Frank. On the whole, the history of British involvements in military operations in the Arab world in the last 10 years tends to suggest: very easy to get involved; not so easy to get out.

Early days yet, but this looks like it might go the same way.

Cheers
D