egafd.com

Bullshit. Gaddafi would have given us and the French cheaper oil if we had backed him against the rebels (or even just let him slaughter them with his army like some round here wished we had done). We just might end up paying more dealing with a business-orientated, democracy than a hold-on-to-power-at-all-costs, power-hungry tyrant.

"I'm not assuming you don't care but I do suspect I know where your priorities lie"

I will leave you alone to carry on making your sly, sickening, mealy-mouthed insinuations.

1200+ bodies found in mass grave = nothing from DJ.

Government plans for Libya slightly off-track = post pointing this out without fail.

I made no insinuations at all. I told you upfront what I felt and why. Stop playing the offended victim.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Name me a war that HAS all gone according to plan.

The invasion of Grenada by the US?

"1200+ bodies found in mass grave = nothing from DJ."

You have obviously, totally misunderstood the thread. My original post is about government hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of Osborne arguing that it would only cost tens of millions and estimates now suggest over a ?1billion. The hypocrisy of Cameron stating that the involvement of the allies is to defend civilians and then piling in with bombing raids of Sirte as the allies stand back to allow the rebels shell the centre of a town of 100,000 people. The same hypocrisy that Blair and Campbell showed with their dodgy dossier to try and build support for war.

Stop the front page, Gaddafi is a merciless dictator. This thread is not about Gaddafi. Of course we know that Gaddafi is ruthless and murderous. The thread is about the hypocrisy of the government and the press representing a civil war like a John Wayne film. Gaddafi very bad, rebels very good. But hey lets gloss over the shooting of black oil workers as "mercenaries", the killing of their own military leader by the rebels, the promise to safeguard civilians in Sirte, which is reneged on etc etc,the extremely dodgy background of some of the rebel leaders.

" Government plans for Libya slightly off-track = post pointing this out without fail. "

Nonsense. "Slightly off track" What the fuck is "slightly off track" about a war to protect civilians that doesnt? And instead turns into a war to assassinate and depose the current leader. And you yourself say you agree "I'm not disagreeing with you about what's gone wrong, or the predicted costs (though I think helping to emancipate a whole country worth it) by the way." "Slightly off track" my arse. Do you seriously think, close to a ?1billion pounds worth of munitions has just hit military targets?

And as for the asinine comment about "helping to emancipate a whole country"the war hasnt even finished yet. Stick your crystal ball in the cupboard will ya?

"I made no insinuations at all. I told you upfront what I felt and why. Stop playing the offended victim".

Arrant and obvious nonsense.

"I just thought the point you made was 'picky' and more to do with political point scoring rather than any real fears for Libyan civilians. I realise I could be doing you a really big disservice, but having had experience of plenty of your posts over the last few years I can look myself in the mirror and not blame myself too much for thinking that way "

Oh what a hilarious wag you are, Samuel!

"I saw no new threads about the tragic uncoverings of mass graves but I do see one mentioning Osbourne and things not going according to plan. In short, "look at what the government are doing wrong!", not, "look at all those murdered people. What a disgrace.I'm not assuming you don't care but I do suspect I know where your priorities lie."

If that is not a bunch of mealy mouthed, sly insinuations I dont know what is.


Get a grip.

You just might have scored maximum points there, beutelwolf!

[quote]You have obviously, totally misunderstood the thread.[/quote]

No I haven't. As we'll soon see....

[quote]My original post is about government hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of Osborne arguing that it would only cost tens of millions and estimates now suggest over a ?1billion.[/quote]

Exactly! You were more interested in highlighting current government failings than the plight of civilians (they were just a convenient, emotive subject to back up your point, which is what I suspected and pointed out). As for Osbourne and the costs: I'd say that was underestimating costs (or hoodwinking) rather than hypocrisy.

[quote]The hypocrisy of Cameron stating that the involvement of the allies is to defend civilians and then piling in with bombing raids of Sirte as the allies stand back to allow the rebels shell the centre of a town of 100,000 people.[/quote]

Yes, that could at least be labelled hypocrisy. But why do you care? You wanted us to sit back and watch anyway, didn't you? Or have you changed your mind about our involvement now? If we interfere we're taking sides and if we sit back we're not stopping slaughter! Hypocrisy, yes - I agree - but I just took exception to the way you were using these civilians for political point-scoring.

[quote]" Government plans for Libya slightly off-track = post pointing this out without fail. "

Nonsense. "Slightly off track" What the fuck is "slightly off track" about a war to protect civilians that doesnt? And instead turns into a war to assassinate and depose the current leader. And you yourself say you agree "I'm not disagreeing with you about what's gone wrong, or the predicted costs (though I think helping to emancipate a whole country worth it) by the way." "Slightly off track" my arse. Do you seriously think, close to a ?1billion pounds worth of munitions has just hit military targets?

And as for the asinine comment about "helping to emancipate a whole country"the war hasnt even finished yet. Stick your crystal ball in the cupboard will ya?[/quote]

I've hit a nerve and you're now ranting.

[quote]"I made no insinuations at all. I told you upfront what I felt and why. Stop playing the offended victim".

Arrant and obvious nonsense.[/quote]

Explain how. To insinuate would be to hint or suggest something in a sneaky, underhand way. You was fully aware of what I thought, and why, because I laid my feelings out very clearly and directly. The nonsense seems to be coming from your end.

[quote]"I just thought the point you made was 'picky' and more to do with political point scoring rather than any real fears for Libyan civilians. I realise I could be doing you a really big disservice, but having had experience of plenty of your posts over the last few years I can look myself in the mirror and not blame myself too much for thinking that way "

Oh what a hilarious wag you are, Samuel![/quote]

Ok.

[quote]"I saw no new threads about the tragic uncoverings of mass graves but I do see one mentioning Osbourne and things not going according to plan. In short, "look at what the government are doing wrong!", not, "look at all those murdered people. What a disgrace.I'm not assuming you don't care but I do suspect I know where your priorities lie."

If that is not a bunch of mealy mouthed, sly insinuations I dont know what is.[/quote]

I couldn't have been clearer about what I thought. Hardly insinuation. Look it up.

[quote]Get a grip.[/quote]

Oh, I have. A firmer grip on what I want out of this war that you seem to have. I wanted us to get involved as soon as it looked like Gaddafi was turning his army on his own people. I would, likewise, want us to stop any rebels doing something similar, and if they did, bring them to an international court, if possible. You, on the other hand, seem to accept Gaddafi is a bit mental but not too keen on us getting involved (at first without UN backing if I remember rightly?) and when we do you're not impressed. You're then still not happy when we sit back refrain from interfering. What exactly DO you want our involvement to be in Libya, David?

Third rate, pedantic nonsense.

Goodnight.

"it was from Day 1 about strategically seeing the end of a mad-dog despot and securing long term Libya`s oil for GB and its Western allies".

I am not so sure about that. Blair and the British government did well out of a Gaddafi run Libya and it was pretty clear prior to allied intervention that Gaddafi's infinitely superior forces would have won.

British leaders throughout history have used a foreign adventure or two to tide themselives over a disastrous domestic policy. Thatcher had one of the lowest poll ratings for any Prime Minister until the Falklands War came along and Thatcher ended up winning the subsequent election.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that at least this month anyway, Cameron actually believes the speech he made about a "muscular foreign policy" in which the UK and the rest of Nato get involved in putting down the odd dictator or two.

But don't step out of line at home mind, by trying to organise a ruck outside your local JD Sports or you run the risk of getting 4 years even if no-one turns up.

Cheers

D

Than your numerous posts extolling the virtues of Nick Clegg, your apparent political hero.....until George Osborne's first emergency budget about 16 months ago, when your support for the Blessed Cleggster, certainly in posting terms, seemed to ebb away like shit in a rainstorm.

Cleggie has had a good 18 months wouldnt you say?

I wonder what Nietzsche would have made of the Blessed Cleggster.

How about

"?I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.?