Troops in Libya

[Hydro]

Going to war for the reasons you describe IS a wind up.

Are we involved in Syria? Did we get involved in Egypt? Ask yourself why Libya is the only part of the "Arab Spring" that we are poking our noses into?

Iraq was a total and utter balls up. Sold to the public on a premise that was demolished rather quickly. Mired in controversy and pushed through by a team of possibly the slimiest politicians ever to grace the House of Commons. It was an embarrassment.

If the premise of Iraq was sold on the idea that "Frankly, we plain don't like Saddam any more", I don't think it'd be poured with as much scorn as it was. The Americans at the time linked Iraq with the 9/11 plotters, and Ronseal tanned Tony came out with the 45 minute claim linked to the possibility British bases in Cyprus could be attacked! Both of which were subsequently shown to be utter bollocks!

There are dozens of ruthless dictators out there. Why aren't we systematically going around the world bringing democracy to the oppressed? Oh wait:

1) We don't have the resources.

2) Like it or not, we only do things in the national interest. If you don't believe this, you are incredibly naive.

3) We aren't, and shouldn't pretend to be, the world police. It's arrogant and makes us look like fools when it all falls down.

It's the job of the armed forces to protect the United Kingdom, outlying territories, property, citizens, and interests of the UK and to honour any alliances. Not to be thrown into any two bit craphole on a whim.

I'd lay money on the fact that Libya has a chequered history with the UK plays a big part in aiding the rebels.

 

[DarloRich]

I personally believe that we should be sending troops into Tripoli, to aid the rebels and because its their job to enter war zones. Gaddafi, although on the cusp of defeat, needs to be sent a clear message and the intervention from Coalition troops is the way to do this.

I think you might find we already have "troops" in Lybia. Do you think a bunch of rebels in pick up trucks armed with beaten up AK's have beaten a well armed, trained and equiped army? Do you think rebels have been guiding in these airstrikes? Or using professinal military target selection?

Do you not think "forces" have been on the ground taking to the rebel head shed and doing deals? Offering "advice" and "mentoring" the rebels?

 

[RyanB]

I think you might find we already have "troops" in Lybia. Do you think a bunch of rebels in pick up trucks armed with beaten up AK's have beaten a well armed, trained and equiped army? Do you think rebels have been guiding in these airstrikes? Or using professinal military target selection?

Do you not think "forces" have been on the ground taking to the rebel head shed and doing deals? Offering "advice" and "mentoring" the rebels?

NATO soldiers have most certainly been in contact with the Rebels, but fairly sure that it was France who sent soldiers to help train and equip the rebels. Without the NATO no-fly zone the Rebels would have been crushed.

There has been talk that the SAS are in Libya preparing to detain/eliminate Gaddafi the MoD hasn't confrimed or denied that they are in there, so chances are high they're in there, plausible deniablity and all that.

Troops were never involved in Egypt as that was purely people power helping to overthrow Mubarak. It's highly unlikely that there will be any involvement in Syria as the military in Syria is used as the sharp end of the stick for the Regime.

Libya is very different because Gaddafi always kept shuffling things around to make sure that only he held the power.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I personally believe that we should be sending troops into Tripoli, to aid the rebels and because its their job to enter war zones.

Under what military compunction that exists do you state that it is the job of the British Forces to enter war zones when the United Nations resolution only refers to the air force protection of civilians? Could you clarify what other specific United Nations approved resolution that you make reference to in your statement.

Are we to see another WMD supposition occuring again?

 

[Darandio]

what part of this thread is a windup?

All of it, from the very concept of you creating the thread and banging on about how "it's their job", to the follow up posts banging on about how "it's their job".

blair and bush ARE heroes. their decisions saved iraq from a ruthless dictator.

OK then, although I would probably not be alone in saying whatever decisions that were made were then carried out by people taking part in the conflict, people like you and me, people that you and me most certainly know. Those ARE the heroes.

 

[350232]

All of it, from the very concept of you creating the thread and banging on about how "it's their job", to the follow up posts banging on about how "it's their job".



OK then, although I would probably not be alone in saying whatever decisions that were made were then carried out by people taking part in the conflict, people like you and me, people that you and me most certainly know. Those ARE the heroes.

no, they are people doing a job. that does not make them any more or less a hero than your local postman.

 

[Darandio]

no, they are people doing a job. that does not make them any more or less a hero than your local postman.

Shocking statement. hock:

 

[350232]

sorry.

 

[Hydro]

no, they are people doing a job. that does not make them any more or less a hero than your local postman.

...and what makes George W. and Tone heroes?

 

[Darandio]

...and what makes George W. and Tone heroes?

Maybe they were postmen before they became "famous".

Seriously, this thread and some comments have no logic, hence why I said it was a wind up............apparently it isn't.

 

[Hydro]

There's probably a few posties with several tours under their belt in the Territorial Army mind

 

[NSEFAN]

blair and bush ARE heroes. their decisions saved iraq from a ruthless dictator.

Bush et al weren't the ones being killed on the front line; I doubt you'd get them to die for their country and the greater good! Saving the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator was not the reason we went to Iraq, it was merely one of the excuses.

 

[exile]

Actually, being US president is not much less dangerous than being a soldier..... 3 assassinated in 300 years - odds of only 100 to 1 of being killed in a year......

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that this thread is in serious danger of causing a very great deal of unpleasantness and bad feeling, on account of the questions being posed and by some of the answers given. Comparisons have been made that should not have been made in the first place.

Postings have been made that have made the personal feelings of all posters known and no further amount of discussion will achieve anything whatsoever, so entrenched are the apparent positions.

Perhaps this thread should be closed, before any more upset is caused.