Libya

Frank the tank

Will Gadaffi fall quickly or do you think it will become a protrcted civil war?

I think it'll be over in a fortnight but it will be bloody.

The demonstrators have my utmost respect/admiration for their bravery.

finchy

I hope that Gadafi's loyalists will realise which way the wind is blowing and abandon the bloodthirsty swine to his fate.

rick_chasey

It's bloody already...

Iraq's made the west slow to respond, which is a big shame. You'd have thought they'd have learned from Bosnia and Kosovo, but I guess most people who were involved in that have since retired...

TMR

Rick Chasey wrote:

Iraq's made the west slow to respond...

Really? Who do you think started that? You need look no further than Langley.

rick_chasey

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Iraq's made the west slow to respond...

Really? Who do you think started that? You need look no further than Langley.

??

Fastlad

One thing is for sure...Gadaffi will never be tried for war crimes. He will die with his regime. And it won't take long.

iainf72

I'm wondering if what comes out of the other end of this is better or worse. I suspect it'll be worse.

cornerblock

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Iraq's made the west slow to respond...

Really? Who do you think started that? You need look no further than Langley.

??

?? Me too. Please explain. Tommy Langley? Langley, Berkshire? :?

brin

iainf72 wrote:

I'm wondering if what comes out of the other end of this is better or worse. I suspect it'll be worse.

Agree, better the devil you know - strange tho that the 'west' always interferes with the politics of those countries rich in oil, yet Mugabe - Zimbabwe, who cares?

sheffsimon

Cornerblock wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Iraq's made the west slow to respond...

Really? Who do you think started that? You need look no further than Langley.

??

?? Me too. Please explain. Tommy Langley? Langley, Berkshire? :?

http://www.kingslangley.org.uk/

A hotbed of international subterfuge.

Or maybe https://www.cia.gov/

dilemna

Gadaffi could always see out his days in Scotland ................

brin

dilemna wrote:

Gadaffi could always see out his days in Scotland ................

Day(S)?

TMR

SheffSimon wrote:

Or maybe https://www.cia.gov/

Indeed. Overthrowing foreign Governments, executing their Commander-in-Chief, and generally meddling where they shouldn't since 1947.

iainf72

dilemna wrote:

Gadaffi could always see out his days in Scotland ................

Perhaps BP or Shell could buy him an island?

dilemna

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Gadaffi could always see out his days in Scotland ................

Perhaps BP or Shell could buy him an island?

He could afford to buy an archipelago ...........

Devils' Island?

davelakers

brin wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'm wondering if what comes out of the other end of this is better or worse. I suspect it'll be worse.

Agree, better the devil you know - strange tho that the 'west' always interferes with the politics of those countries rich in oil, yet Mugabe - Zimbabwe, who cares?

Oil is a little bit important dont you think?

cornerblock

The Mad Rapper wrote:

SheffSimon wrote:

Or maybe https://www.cia.gov/

Indeed. Overthrowing foreign Governments, executing their Commander-in-Chief, and generally meddling where they shouldn't since 1947.

Ah. I see.

peterst6906

Rick Chasey wrote:

You'd have thought they'd have learned from Bosnia and Kosovo, but I guess most people who were involved in that have since retired...

Retired? Not necessarily, however there are processes to follow. It isn't just a Jon Wayne case of going in guns blazing, ask questions later.

There is a lot of process to go through first.

petemadoc

peterst6906 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You'd have thought they'd have learned from Bosnia and Kosovo, but I guess most people who were involved in that have since retired...

Retired? Not necessarily, however there are processes to follow. It isn't just a Jon Wayne case of going in guns blazing, ask questions later.

There is a lot of process to go through first.

What? ? Like trying to get a UN resolution but not getting a UN resolution and just saying fukk it we'll invade anyway. Sounds like a john wayne flick to me.

If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow

All these middle East revolutions have happened really quickly and the US and UK forces are overstretched in Afganistan. We couldn't commit armed forces even if we wanted.

StillGoing

North Africa is not going to be very west friendly very soon IMO. Sometimes it's better the devil you know and I fear Libya, Tunisia, Egypt etc are about to find that out. Iran sending war ships through the Suez is a deliberate act to wind up the Israeli's and a thumbing of the nose towards the USA. Iran will try and influence all of these Islamic nations helping some mad extremist into power. It will then be impossible to get rid of them.

On the bright side, that old rusting pushbike at the back of the shed will suddenly rise in value when we can't afford to buy fuel for the car anymore.

Oh and surely Tony Bliar's knighthood has surely gone for a burton with all the revelations being revealed?

rundle

And Libya is still a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

Seems strafing your citizens is seen as OK.

Stewie Griffin

Perhaps he wants his plutonium back from Doc Brown.

rick_chasey

PeteMadoc wrote:

peterst6906 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You'd have thought they'd have learned from Bosnia and Kosovo, but I guess most people who were involved in that have since retired...

Retired? Not necessarily, however there are processes to follow. It isn't just a Jon Wayne case of going in guns blazing, ask questions later.

There is a lot of process to go through first.

What? ? Like trying to get a UN resolution but not getting a UN resolution and just saying fukk it we'll invade anyway. Sounds like a john wayne flick to me.

If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow

All these middle East revolutions have happened really quickly and the US and UK forces are overstretched in Afganistan. We couldn't commit armed forces even if we wanted.

That's not what I mean. The UN machinary is too slow, and it is as risk of not even working because China have vested interest in Gadaffi and have made that quite clear.

What I mean is that a quick intervention to perhaps prevent airplanes bombing civilians - that kind of thing. I'm not talking about an invasion.

The consensus after Kosovo was that the Western response was too slow and most of the damage had been done already. The consensus on Rwanda was that the UN was a) too slow and b) far far too ineffective.

As for the forces being overstreched - that was half my point...

There are times when the UN is useful - and times when it is not. When things kick off quickly and brutally, it's usually used as a scapegoat or excuse for a lack of intervention.

"What? We were doing through the UN - what more do you want?"

That the UK finds it OK to fully invade two nations that are obstensibly stable, yet won't offer brief, short lived defence against massive war crimes is bizzare.

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

PeteMadoc wrote:

peterst6906 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You'd have thought they'd have learned from Bosnia and Kosovo, but I guess most people who were involved in that have since retired...

Retired? Not necessarily, however there are processes to follow. It isn't just a Jon Wayne case of going in guns blazing, ask questions later.

There is a lot of process to go through first.

What? ? Like trying to get a UN resolution but not getting a UN resolution and just saying fukk it we'll invade anyway. Sounds like a john wayne flick to me.

If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow

All these middle East revolutions have happened really quickly and the US and UK forces are overstretched in Afganistan. We couldn't commit armed forces even if we wanted.

That's not what I mean. The UN machinary is too slow, and it is as risk of not even working because China have vested interest in Gadaffi and have made that quite clear.

What I mean is that a quick intervention to perhaps prevent airplanes bombing civilians - that kind of thing. I'm not talking about an invasion.

The consensus after Kosovo was that the Western response was too slow and most of the damage had been done already. The consensus on Rwanda was that the UN was a) too slow and b) far far too ineffective.

As for the forces being overstreched - that was half my point...

There are times when the UN is useful - and times when it is not. When things kick off quickly and brutally, it's usually used as a scapegoat or excuse for a lack of intervention.

"What? We were doing through the UN - what more do you want?"

That the UK finds it OK to fully invade two nations that are obstensibly stable, yet won't offer brief, short lived defence against massive war crimes is bizzare.

Maybe a short but regrettably, bloody revolution is what libya needs for its long term future and the mandarins at the Foreign office realise this.

Fortunately we cannot police the world, nor tell countries how to be, our forces and means are stretched as it is. Sanctions mean nothing to Col Gaddaffi, he has never cared what anyone thinks anyway, and up until recent times has courted terror groups quite happily. Nobody is putting weapons in the rebels hands, they are picking them up and acting on repressed decades of feelings.

The UN is fairly slow burning and reactions are not good, look at Rwanda and how the Dutch troops were curtailed at Srebernica.

mattshrops

just look at how many un resolutions israel is continually in breach of, where is the will to do anything there?

Anonymous

mattshrops wrote:

just look at how many un resolutions israel is continually in breach of, where is the will to do anything there?

Israel writes its own mandate and quite rightly so. Israel has balls and i admire israel greatly.

TMR

dmclite wrote:

Israel writes its own mandate and quite rightly so. Israel has balls and i admire israel greatly.

If Israel didn't have US support, I'm sure their attitude towards their neighbours would be very different.

Anonymous

The Mad Rapper wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Israel writes its own mandate and quite rightly so. Israel has balls and i admire israel greatly.

If Israel didn't have US support, I'm sure their attitude towards their neighbours would be very different.

Israels neighbours have been systematically trying to wipe out Israel for decades. After the Holocaust I think all gloves are off are far as the founding and maintaining of Israel.

iainf72

dmclite wrote:

Israels neighbours have been systematically trying to wipe out Israel for decades. After the Holocaust I think all gloves are off are far as the founding and maintaining of Israel.

But their neighbours haven't been acting collaboratively and this has benefited Israel. If they all "ganged up" (as it were) it would be a different story and this is one of the dangers of the changes in the middle east. Lots of crackpots doing their own thing is one thing, but a few crackpots teaming up is something else entirely.

TMR

dmclite wrote:

Israels neighbours have been systematically trying to wipe out Israel for decades. After the Holocaust I think all gloves are off are far as the founding and maintaining of Israel.

The holocaust has no place in this discussion IMHO.

The fact is that Israel occupies land that doesn't belong to it. We're to blame for that.

TMR

iainf72 wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Israels neighbours have been systematically trying to wipe out Israel for decades. After the Holocaust I think all gloves are off are far as the founding and maintaining of Israel.

But their neighbours haven't been acting collaboratively and this has benefited Israel. If they all "ganged up" (as it were) it would be a different story and this is one of the dangers of the changes in the middle east. Lots of crackpots doing their own thing is one thing, but a few crackpots teaming up is something else entirely.

Interesting. Why do you label them 'crackpots'?