egafd.com

I'd have been much more graceful in defeat than you're being. That's another difference between us.

I'd have been much more graceful in defeat than you're being. That's another difference between us.

What do you expect, Sam when you state something like

"The Government plans for Libya slightly off-track"

What did you expect, congratulations on your keen intellect? How can a war designed purely to defend Libyan civilians in line with a UN resolution, which has resulted in:

1. The UK taking sides in a civil war by providing money and military advice on the ground as well as a huge number of airstrikes only on behalf of one side in the battle.
2. The UK attempting to assassinate the leader of the Libyan state, an act illegal in UN law.
3. The only civilians being protected are those in the cities held by the "goodies" the rebels. Civilians in those held by the "baddies," Gaddafi's men e.g. Sirte left to fend completely by themselves as Nato launch airstrikes on the town and the rebels lob artillery shells into the city centre.
4. Costs have gone up from tens of millions to over ?1 billion and counting.

be described as "slightly off-track". I noticed you completely dodged answering that key point.

The hypocrisy of the government's actions just like the hypocrisy of Blair and the Iraq war do not require an indepth statement of who, when, how many Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein killed. (Slot for Sam to say "Iam not saying this to be fair!" ) If you want a discussion about who killed who, when etc then start your own thread, Sam Slater, (nearly 10,000 posts and about 2 that I can recall which started a thread!). Here's a subject for you. Civilian deaths in the Libyan war. I would be delighted to contribute on THAT subject.

Secondly I know what your views on Libya are. I have already given you my views on what my gut feel was re. what we should have done re. Libya a long time ago. Use the search facility.

And finally, as for

"I'd have been much more graceful in defeat than you're being."

Err. whatever you say, Sam.
D

What's this? A reply rehashing previously-argued points and side issues to divert attention from the main point I made, which you failed miserably to dispute and dismiss?

I'm bored, so I'll play a while:

[quote]What do you expect, Sam when you state something like

"The Government plans for Libya slightly off-track"

What did you expect, congratulations on your keen intellect?[/quote]

Congratulations, no. The social skills required to understand why I used the language I used, yes. You see, David, I knew you was trying to come across all outraged and was in the process of making serious -to you- political point-scoring. I knew wording it 'slightly off track' would rile you (whether privately, or publicly). I was being deliberately flippant..........facetious, if you prefer. Let me point out you yourself worded it 'not quite to plan' which I rightly took for sarcasm, so I can't see how you took my wording so literally. I mean, you were being sarcastic, right? Otherwise you'd be treating it all a little flippantly as well. I think your one-track mindset of arguing politics is getting to you. Why not take a break?

[quote]How can a war designed purely to defend Libyan civilians in line with a UN resolution, which has resulted in:

1. The UK taking sides in a civil war by providing money and military advice on the ground as well as a huge number of airstrikes only on behalf of one side in the battle.
2. The UK attempting to assassinate the leader of the Libyan state, an act illegal in UN law.
3. The only civilians being protected are those in the cities held by the "goodies" the rebels. Civilians in those held by the "baddies," Gaddafi's men e.g. Sirte left to fend completely by themselves as Nato launch airstrikes on the town and the rebels lob artillery shells into the city centre.
4. Costs have gone up from tens of millions to over ?1 billion and counting.

be described as "slightly off-track". I noticed you completely dodged answering that key point.[/quote]

Well, you know the answer to that now, and as previously discussed, I wouldn't argue too much with those points. Again, I repeat, I took exception to you using civilians in danger as a political mace to bash people into submission with. They were a convenient tool to achieve your goal.

[quote]The hypocrisy of the government's actions just like the hypocrisy of Blair and the Iraq war do not require an indepth statement of who, when, how many Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein killed. (Slot for Sam to say "Iam not saying this to be fair!" )[/quote]

I didn't say that, tbf.

[quote]If you want a discussion about who killed who, when etc then start your own thread, Sam Slater, (nearly 10,000 posts and about 2 that I can recall which started a thread!).[/quote]

Is that an order? Are you banning me from bringing up, what I may feel to be, issues relevant to a discussion we're having? (Slot for David to say "I am not saying this to be fair!") Are you annoyed at me for bringing up things which show not just what I think, but why I may think the way I do? That's not a discussion or debate, in my book, but using the bgafd as some sort of twitter feed.

I refuse to bow to your rules, David, and will reply to anything I deem worthy and in any way I want. It will be up to the mods to decide if I've stepped over the line.

And as for thread-starting: I guess I'm not as attention-seeking as you. You'd have a better point if I was just being critical of other peoples' opinions without expressing my own. I feel, though, that during my replies and retorts I do give as much detail about what and why I think things as I feel is needed. Obviously that's something you think I shouldn't do unless I start my own threads. Childishness.

[quote]Secondly I know what your views on Libya are. I have already given you my views on what my gut feel was re. what we should have done re. Libya a long time ago. Use the search facility.[/quote]

I could, and would, but have you seen how many of your posts I'd have to trawl through to get to what I wanted? Oy!

If you don't feel gentlemanly enough to remind me then that's fine. As I said: I'd be far more graceful in defeat.

[quote]And finally, as for

"I'd have been much more graceful in defeat than you're being."

Err. whatever you say, Sam.[/quote]

Thank you. Whatever I say !happy! ...........wait a minute.....is that David's sarcasm shining through again? You rascal, you!

!wink!

Just got round to reading your reply to me David (Berlin having occupied me
much of the past week). I take your point about the West thinking they
could make money out of Gaddhafi but, as soon as the war started, when
they began criticising his heavy-handedness towards the rebels, making
veiled threats towards the West, I think the Powers decided he was a rabid
dog best destroyed.....After all, it was going to be such an easy war, just a
few weeks, and those nice rebels would repay us with lots of oil deals....
Ha ha !! to that !
Wars have often been fought for the flimsiest and most cynical of reasons -
"the last refuge of a scoundrel" (politician) as an 18th century statesman
said. The Blair-Bush Iraq War, with its tosh about weapons of mass
destruction and its rush to invasion was so blatant that, in historical terms,
it took my breath away. I wanted to scream to everyone, "Can`t you all see
how we are being conned, its so fucking obvious. WMD are a pretext, a
bloody huge casus belli" but there, before our eyes, each day on TV, it moved
inexorably forward.
Wars, once begun, have an unpredictable momentum of their own. As our
current Brit Govt may yet find out to their cost.

I can get 3-4 sandwich lunches out of that lot and 4 chicken & pasta dinners (though you missed out the sauce). There are 7 days in a week my friend.

You get an E for only managing half a week's food but a C for the effort. Overall I give you get a D.

Serves me right for replying on my mobile. How the fuck my reply to Max ended up here I'll never know!