egafd.com

As I recall Cameron accepted that the UN resolution which he was determined to adhere to, did not allow regime change. Cameron and Hague did say, however, that although it wasnt a military objective, from a political point of view they would prefer Gadafi to go.

Now in the Times, Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy penned a letter including the following:

"However, so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. For that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good.

So now we are bombing the Libyans until Gaddafi goes.

Given bombing the Libyans for a month hasn't got rid of Gaddafi, can I hear the sound of squaddies polishing their boots?

Of course if the squaddies go in, it will be purely in an advisory capacity to help the civilians to defend themselves.

Cheers
D

No doubt the CIA London Chief, aka VP Blair is weedling his way in the background....slither, crawl, slurp etc etc...

At least Blair saved the NHS, where as little jumped lord fauntleroy will destroy it

What's Blair got to do with it? Are you saying Cameron hasnt got a brain? Have you not noticed that there has been a different government in the UK for a year?

Cheers
D

All this talk about our Tony Blair beggars the question, "Where is our beloved, Middle East Peace envoy?" !laugh!!laugh!!laugh!

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dZf1f2nkLKA/T ... rd_640.jpg[/img]

Must be at least a fortnight since you have posted that picture, James!

It still doesn't have anything to do with Cameron's decisions in Libya. There's a different government in Westminster, don't you know?

Cheers
D

OUt of interest: would you prefer Gaddafi stays in power?

Apologies for coining your favorite phrase!

David, must it not trouble you that in spite of your incessant rabble rousing against the Coalition, other than your few acolytes, you are unable to gain any tangible support for your views?

Could it be because no one listens to the views of a blinkered, partisan supporter of any cause whether it be a religious faith or a political party?

People know that if New Labour had been in power and they had been merrily bombing the shit out of Libya (As they most certainly would have been doing) no one would have heard a peep out of you. So your views are totally, one-sided, which render them, in effect, worthless.
They would have being presenting us with their doctored, "Stats" explaining how everything from crime to NHS spending was, "Right on target."

So if New labour had won the last election, this would be our situation at present:

We would still be bombing Libya and making plans to invade.
We would still have had massive cuts to public spending.
There would be no plans whatsoever to curtail the banks or the City.
There would be no plans to curtail the massive salaries and huge final salary pensions of the useless fat cats running quangos and utilities in the public sector.
They would have found a way of stopping the enquiry into the expenses frauds being committed by mostly Labour MP's.
Political correctness would be being used to control every facet of our lives.

PLUS

The incessant erosion of our civil liberties would have continued.
The festooning of the UK with CCTV would have continued unabated.
The persecution of the motorist would have continued.
"Harridan" Harman would have been preparing an assault on the consumers of pornography in particular, hetero porn.
The assault on the pockets of the working man in the PRIVATE sector would have continued.
Finally, there would have been NO mass protests against the cuts or the war, because the Left is controlled by people like yourself, David, who will idly sit and watch, whilst they are blindly led into a Police State simply because the perpetrators are Socialists and therefore incapable of, "Error!"

In short for the likes of you and I, there would have been little difference in our lives, other than the fact that we would have been getting closer to a dictatorship............ and close to bankruptcy..........oh and you would have been droolingly happy and have had nothing to say on this forum!

Okay so your post has nothing to do with Cameron's actions which is what I pointed out in the first place.

You could have just stated that and saved yourself typing your usual pile of misinformed, laughably biased, misleading, Gypsy Rose Lee dross.

When you have used your crystal balls to work out the winner of the 4 o'clock at Haydock, let me know please and I'll back something else.

!wink!

Cheers
D

"OUt of interest: would you prefer Gaddafi stays in power?"

This is the open ended, imprecise question posed by politicians everywhere.

What do you expect me to say? "Yes, because that Gaddafi seems a very fine fellow and wonderful statesman."

Sometimes, an option taken is not so much the best as the least worst.

With hindsight (a wonderful advantage), I suspect the invasion of Iraq was not the least worst option.

With an unachievable military objective within the terms of the UN resolution, the current stalemate looks as if it may not be the least worst option.

CHeers
D