I must have done because now all three main political party's are falling over themselves to sound out the War Clarion as Britain engages in yet another costly campaign in the desert and pretends to us all again that it has nothing to do with OIL
How stupid do they really think we are? and having armed and sucked up to Gaddafi for so long are we now expected to just forget the huge part we played, right up to the release of the Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in protecting his reign?

These are all questions we must all ask ourselves and answer before we accept any moral justification for Britain involving itself in yet another Middle East meltdown. Why o why a nation like ours supposedly bankrupt wants to jump in both feet first is any ones guess.
Gaddafi is not liked in the West and few from any side would mourn his passing but Libya is a country divided The North and West in favour of Gaddifis reign continuing under him and his son Saif and the East equally determined to overthrow the state. Therefore the UN resolution to enforce a no fly zone and to prevent attacks on civilians was just in its formation and supported by the Arab League with its votes because it made sense.
But is there anyone out there still willing to believe the British or French military when they say they are simply endorsing the UN resolution? Shots of a Libyan jet being brought down on Saturday morning were used as an example of Libyan government aggression against the rebels. Then just a few hours later when it was no longer possible to deny that the fighter jet actually belonged to the rebels and was being used against government forces the BBC changed its tune but not composer by describing its bringing down as still an act of Libyan Government aggression but this time by ground to air troops against a rebel plane!
It seems now as if the civilian rebels have tanks and planes! This has all the hallmarks of a bloody civil war with little signs of an early victor.
This conflict for the West is about Regime change. pure and simple, Gaddafi has had his day and they now need to dispose of him and interfere in the election of tommorrow puppet to the West, and the realisation today (Monday 21st March 2011) that voices in the Arab League are questioning the intent and actions of those carrying out the UN resolution paint a dark picture for the west's involvement from here on in. Already the end game is uncertain, the planning? non existent and the questions as to compliance with the UN resoltion already being questioned by the Arab League, India and others. Call me old fashioned but shouldn't we set the plan for all to see and have clear objectives laid out and decided upon before we start shooting people? Shouldn't we ensure that those plans accord with international law before we go messing around in the internal conflict of another sovereign state
I am not a pacifist. I don't like war, who does? I voted against the Iraq war in the Commons because the case was not proven and I equally supported the action on Serbia/Croatia because it was and it was obvious to anyone that only force alone would stop an humanitarian crisis from continuing, but who are our current political leaders kidding when they try and tell us that civilians dying at the hands of British supplied arms in Yemen and Bahrain are less deserving than civilians dying at the end of a British supplied gun in Libya.
But the real nasty taste left in my mouth from all the weekend news was the race by Clegg and Milliband to jump aboard any passing war horse. we are fully behind the Prime Minister and his actions they said. Well did they ask their respective memberships? of course not and it sums up all that is wrong with British Politics today. Around the Country Labour and Lib Dem candidates will be knocking on doors before the local election polls trying to defend the stances of their respective parties which they themselves had no say in formulating. as we speak a vote in the Commons will be conducted with a Free Vote (if you believe that then you really are gullible) to decide on whether or not we undertake Military action which has already begun!
Over in Palestine there will be continued confusion as to why only some UN resolutions are acted on by the West whilst others are ignored for years and years and years. And in Yemen and Bahrain families will be burying their loved ones with no hope of international support or intervention simply because their OIL flows are either not significant or they flow in a different direction!
Forced regime change in Libya? NOT IN MY NAME. Selective action to cover up the self interest of the West? NOT IN MY NAME. A Party leader telling me how to think and who to support? NOT HERE
Well said Tony. BTW I think you've got your East & West Libya mixed up (6th para)!
ReplyDeleteThanks Roger, and you are right about my confused compass! Today the cost of our folly is being revealed, the cost of a single cruise missile is about £500,000, while a single Tornado sortie is about £30,000 - in fuel alone.
ReplyDeleteIf a Tornado was downed, and had to be replaced, it would cost the Treasury upwards of £50m, he warned. The US and UK have already fired more than 110 cruise missiles, but it is not clear how many were launched by Britain.
The total cost of military action per year in Libya is estimated to be around the £4bn mark!
Tony, we may not see eye to eye on many things, but our continual interference in the business of other countries cannot be condoned. It is becooming blatantly obvious that our intervention is about oil and natural resources not about humantarian aid, otherwise why have we not intervened in Zimbabwe?
ReplyDeletePatriot, our differences centre around where we are viewing the problem from.
ReplyDeletei.e. from the position of being a nationalist or an internationalist, but I agree about two faced approach. Given Zimbabwe's history as a former colonial state you would think we would have a first duty there, or in Palastine, after all we screwed both countries up so we have a duty and a debt.
But Libya? So yes it is crystal clear that it is just about the oil, and yet the media don't want to say it and the public don't want to believe it.
For the record, and so I don't get in any more trouble; these are MY own views... (Are we all clear and covered?)
ReplyDeleteFirst off... "Call me old fashioned but shouldn't we set the plan for all to see and have clear objectives laid out and decided upon before we start shooting people?" You do make me smile Mister!
Not sure if I got this bit correct, but how can you NOT be a pacifist, but also not like war? By its very name surely a pacifist, would not like wars and stuff anyways? (Or was that me reading it wrong at 6am?)
I get your point, and sort of agree.
But... is it wrong to want to save civilian life?
Yes maybe Britain is to blame, yes maybe war (in whatever form) is wrong; but if you do nothing surely we are as bad as those we may want to stop?
(If that makes sense, I shall be impressed ~ still feeling groggy from the fall last night)
You know me; I am not a "conforming" kinda gal. However, "if" (and it's a big if) it came down to my "vote" I would personally weigh up all the facts before making that choice...
Now don't get me wrong, war is wrong period. But I am looking at things on a bit more basic level than your (sometimes) complicated view... do any more of OUR brave service men and women NEED to die in wars that were not of our choice or making?
I totally agree that the Iraq war was unjust, with no proof and only as retaliation for 9/11; our armed forces are sent to their graves for what?
After all, you can't save the world can you mate?
Pacifists generally are against all war and military intervention. As I described I voted for action in Serbia because that was just.
ReplyDeleteA UN resolution makes action legal, but my question is why is it us that is policing this one? Are we no longer broke? And are we sure that both sides are civilian friendly?
An Arab League solution to an Arabic nation problemwithout Western oil driven intervention is what I want.
Agree with you on both fronts.
ReplyDeleteStill don't understand it completely, but then I feel that way about most wars if I am honest; still cannot understand why we NEED to have wars ~ can people not think without their fists and toys?
When you have a minute, please give me an e-mail; want to ask you something about this election thingy... (don't worry, nothing bad)
Britain and NATO are 100% correct. I guess if you was alive in the 30's you would have allowed Hitler to carry on his business as well.
ReplyDeleteForgive me anonymous but what was that little bit of banter about when the Tory PM returned from Munich with 'Peace in our time' flitting off his lips!
ReplyDeleteAnd what by the way was the non-interventionist line of the British Government when fascist bombers were practising bombing civilians in Guernica in the Spanish Civil War?
If you want to use historical analogies have the decency to get them right!
Anon, if I were alive in the 30s I would have happily fought Hitlers aggression against his neighbours and would have speaking out against his policy of genicide against all those not of his liking.
ReplyDeleteAs I said I supported action against Serbia when in Parliament, perhaps the difference therefore between us is that I think for myself rather than letting a government or party leadership tell me what I should think and who I should back.
NATO may be 100% correct I have no problem with UN res 1979 but France and the UK and the USA are in my view in breach in their interpretation and in its enforcement. And once again at &500,000 a missile I think a little economic caution wouldn't go amiss!
Anon; was that aimed at me?
ReplyDeleteI think you are confused, I don't think something like world war two was right; and I do think we were right to enter into that war. (and the first world war ~ you know the great war to end all wars... didn't work did it?)
My point I guess (even if I cannot convay it as well as John or Tony) is war sucks. Sure we "might" win, but look at the costs... someone loses their wife, husband, son, daughter, bother or sister and people don't really learn.
If they learnt during the first world war then we would have not had a second one would we? Surely the point of teaching someone is that they learn? If not, why on earth did I have to go school?
What was the point of sending our troops to fight (and often to their death) in Iraq, when the "guy" we were fighting has not been seen since 9/11; and it does seem to be that we are fighting a losing cause...
If you are pro war, go out and fight with others by all means. I shall respect and support you, like I do all our armed forces; but it will not stop me wanting to find a better solution for everyone ~ one where mothers, fathers, partners and children do not need to bury their loved ones...
Is that so wrong Anon?