Libya

[tup]

Like the Colonel with the missiles, I knew that was coming.

 

Nice place Brunei although it pisses with rain every night. Better place than Tripoli though. It's always been a shithole and no amount of bombs will make it any worse.

 

f**k living in either of those repressive shitholes.

[The Boofon]

f**k living in either of those repressive shitholes.

 

 

Have you ever been to Brunei? Or Tripoli?

 

Just asking like.

 

You must have read about it.

[tup]

Have you ever been to Brunei? Or Tripoli?

 

Just asking like.

 

You must have read about it.

 

Are you crazy? I've got better things to do than head for Tripoli of a weekend, or Brunei.

 

I can only imagine the sterility of the lifestyle though, jesus christ, just shoot me now, rather than playing out my life in a staid, tedious shithole where even chewing gum can see you banged up for 40 years hard labour.

 

Yes I've read about them, and my understanding is that both places are best avoided.

 

Unless of course you're raping and pillaging their natural resources, where your presence is understandable.

 

Dinna try and tell me it's good, you're kidding yourself if you're coming away with that crap, dollars are your motivation, you're a slave to the greenbacks.

 

Fill your boots, I'm staying here thanks.

[Bluto10]

have they delivered the a-bomb yet?

[The Boofon]

errr sploots, who are "they", how does one "deliver" it - assuming it is still current technology - and to whom?

 

 

Parcel Force, in a van and to you sometime between the hours of 9am - 5pm. They'll leave it up the back alley if you're nae in and put a card through your door to say they've been. Parcelforce are a bunch of c**ts with things like that.

[Bluto10]

dropped uncerimoniously from a great height.

 

bosh.

 

goodnight vienna.

[tup]

Bluto's knowledge of world affairs extends to the contents of the yellow ticker tape info running across the Sky News screen.

 

If England are due to play some obscure country, he'll know a bit more about them, for a few weeks, after which they'll disappear off his radar again. Usually you get 20 facts, of the let's ridicule these backward c**ts variety, on the country in question in the Star in the lead up to the game, easily digestable for the IQ levels they're appealing to.

[The Boofon]

You and your back alley references. I've already telt ye I'm nae a poof. I did use DEFINITELY for emphasis. Or maybe to reinforce my denial. One of the two.

 

 

I think it was the middle one.

 

Back alley is an alley round the back of your house. No Willie Woofter reference intended.

 

You're a little paranoid with all the shirt lifting shenanigans.

 

I'll open the door, you just come out when you're good and ready.

 

[Crossbow]

You mean like we are flying from the UK, over France, Italy, into Greek airspace, Cypriot airspace etc... We, the UK have quite strong ties with Angola and they were more than willing to allow any assistance to Zimbabwe to be launched from there grounds. There was no excuse for not entering Zimbabwe, there was no excuse for not entering Uganda either. If the Ugandan oil had been found earlier though you could guarantee we would've stopped the rape, torture and genocide there though.

 

Libya is a sovereign state, they are responsible for their own affairs. The only governments who are refusing to openly admit to this though are the UK and French. You use the term morally bankrupt, isnt it just as morally wrong for 2 countries to decide they want regime change and take advantage of a situation? News from Libya is moderated to the max by the Libyan government, so much so it is total propaganda. That doesnt give the UK the right to decide which parts are true or not though. For all we know, and we know very little when it comes to numbers for and against Gaddafi, he could hold a major majority in the country, the rebels are few and we are in fact enforcing what only 5-10% of a country actually wants.

 

Are you sure about that last statement? From the reactions I have read and seen from other countries we do not have the backing the UK government and media would lead us to believe. Against this are China, Russia, Germany, Turkey, most Arab states (the Arab League has already condemned the action), the US is on the sidelines and India have also said they are totally against any action. I'd say that group covers more than half the population of the planet so if you hold your ideas of democracy true then the action goes against the freedom we in the west are so quick to sight as a reason for invasion, installing democracy and freedom.

 

Happily go for intervening in Uganda and Zim, I think the logisitics of it would make Zim unsuccesfful by ourselves and on that basis we shouldn't do it. Uganda is a different case and again the power blocks were issues but on a simple humanitarian point - yes we could have and should have perhaps done more but I do not know all the issues around that time (not that i know all of them now - I am not prescient).

 

I think you exaggerate when you say the US are on the sidelines given they have performed at least half the sorties for one quote I have seen. I think you are perhaps being a little disingenuous when you can hark back to the evidence of multiple Libyan and news sources about the level of popular uprising. That however is not the point, it is a siomple humanitarian one - Gaddafi is shelling and bombinig cicvilians and we can stop it. There are many ills in this world, some we cannot change by ourselves, some need help and if there is enough help available and it is do-able to argue that we could have been doing more earlier and more elsewhere so should therefore not do anything in Libya seems schizophrenic.

 

Happy to go with concepts of democracy and happy to admit my information inevitably will be filtered however wouldn't start to line up countries like China and Russia when using a democratic process and the German governemnt's lack of direct involvement has drawn considerable criticism from the centre-left so could easily argue about the mandate for abstension there. Anyway don't think we should invade, there is no mandate and nor will there ever be imo, but we should stop indiscriminate slaughter of innocents if we can.

 

It is I freely accept a simplistic stance but reduced to the simple one of a shell blowing up a wee child whilst we stand and watch and say shame on you mr gaddafi I can't conceive of an alternative approach. Do you have one (I'd be delighted to hear of a suitable quick fix) or is it just let him get on with killing the children?

[The Boofon]

Hitler's dead you moron and the daughter and grandchildren/inbreds of Josef F have been liberated. What have you got against Austrians now?

 

 

He thinks they gave the world Neighbours and Home & Away.

 

Nae the sharpest is the machine.

[Jonty]

Hitler's dead you moron and the daughter and grandchildren/inbreds of Josef F have been liberated. What have you got against Austrians now?

 

Rolf Harris, Neighbours and Aborigines mainly.

[Jonty]

He thinks they gave the world Neighbours and Home & Away.

 

Nae the sharpest is the machine.

 

Boom boom

[The Boofon]

Rolf Harris, Neighbours and Aborigines mainly.

 

A time machine to take you back to 1.40pm would make that funnier than in it's original guise.

[The Boofon]

Boom boom

 

Is that you firing up the time machine?

[Jonty]

Happily go for intervening in Uganda and Zim, I think the logisitics of it would make Zim unsuccesfful by ourselves and on that basis we shouldn't do it. Uganda is a different case and again the power blocks were issues but on a simple humanitarian point - yes we could have and should have perhaps done more but I do not know all the issues around that time (not that i know all of them now - I am not prescient).

 

I think you exaggerate when you say the US are on the sidelines given they have performed at least half the sorties for one quote I have seen. I think you are perhaps being a little disingenuous when you can hark back to the evidence of multiple Libyan and news sources about the level of popular uprising. That however is not the point, it is a siomple humanitarian one - Gaddafi is shelling and bombinig cicvilians and we can stop it. There are many ills in this world, some we cannot change by ourselves, some need help and if there is enough help available and it is do-able to argue that we could have been doing more earlier and more elsewhere so should therefore not do anything in Libya seems schizophrenic.

 

Happy to go with concepts of democracy and happy to admit my information inevitably will be filtered however wouldn't start to line up countries like China and Russia when using a democratic process and the German governemnt's lack of direct involvement has drawn considerable criticism from the centre-left so could easily argue about the mandate for abstension there. Anyway don't think we should invade, there is no mandate and nor will there ever be imo, but we should stop indiscriminate slaughter of innocents if we can.

 

It is I freely accept a simplistic stance but reduced to the simple one of a shell blowing up a wee child whilst we stand and watch and say shame on you mr gaddafi I can't conceive of an alternative approach. Do you have one (I'd be delighted to hear of a suitable quick fix) or is it just let him get on with killing the children?

 

100 % Agree.

 

Just cos we didn't intervene in Zim, we shouldn't intervene in Libya - why? Just cos we can't deal with all the despots in the world doesn;t mean we shouldn't deal with some of them.

 

What natural resources does Bosnia have exactly?

[Jonty]

Is that you firing up the time machine?

 

[The Boofon]

100 % Agree.

 

Just cos we didn't intervene in Zim, we shouldn't intervene in Libya - why? Just cos we can't deal with all the despots in the world doesn;t mean we shouldn't deal with some of them.

 

What natural resources does Bosnia have exactly?

 

 

They've some cracking flange on the go.

[spamspamspam]

Happily go for intervening in Uganda and Zim, I think the logisitics of it would make Zim unsuccesfful by ourselves and on that basis we shouldn't do it. Uganda is a different case and again the power blocks were issues but on a simple humanitarian point - yes we could have and should have perhaps done more but I do not know all the issues around that time (not that i know all of them now - I am not prescient).

 

I think you exaggerate when you say the US are on the sidelines given they have performed at least half the sorties for one quote I have seen. I think you are perhaps being a little disingenuous when you can hark back to the evidence of multiple Libyan and news sources about the level of popular uprising. That however is not the point, it is a siomple humanitarian one - Gaddafi is shelling and bombinig cicvilians and we can stop it. There are many ills in this world, some we cannot change by ourselves, some need help and if there is enough help available and it is do-able to argue that we could have been doing more earlier and more elsewhere so should therefore not do anything in Libya seems schizophrenic.

 

Happy to go with concepts of democracy and happy to admit my information inevitably will be filtered however wouldn't start to line up countries like China and Russia when using a democratic process and the German governemnt's lack of direct involvement has drawn considerable criticism from the centre-left so could easily argue about the mandate for abstension there. Anyway don't think we should invade, there is no mandate and nor will there ever be imo, but we should stop indiscriminate slaughter of innocents if we can.

 

It is I freely accept a simplistic stance but reduced to the simple one of a shell blowing up a wee child whilst we stand and watch and say shame on you mr gaddafi I can't conceive of an alternative approach. Do you have one (I'd be delighted to hear of a suitable quick fix) or is it just let him get on with killing the children?

 

So we should only intervene when we can win then? Not exactly a moral high ground, how does that sit in this moral bank account you've been speaking about? I'd say pretty overdrawn and with loads of charges...

 

The US are taking a "back seat in operations" within the next 48 hours. There has also been a question over the legality of US involvement as it hasnt been run past congress yet. Yes the US has fired some missiles and sent over a few spy planes and drones but that is the extent of their involvement. The US are not unilaterally backing action and the US people are not wanting to get involved at all.

 

There is plenty of reports to hark back to from both sides... I'm only stating the fact though that the news we receive from inside Libya, be that from Libyan sources or Western is propaganda to serve either sides agenda. The UK want war, oil and rid of Gaddafi so we hear about mass murder, shelling of his own people - by his own they actually mean revolutionaries, I for one would not welcome a Saudi led assault on my country and troops if we were in the middle of a revolution, would you - the murder of children (new one on me, heard plenty about the books of the missing etc but most are young men). We then hear about his backing of terrorists, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Look at Che Guevara, lauded in parts of South America, classed as no more than a murderer in Northern Africa. Its all about perspective...

 

What you call schizophrenic I call double standards. I've never argued that we shouldnt go into Libya because we didnt in Zimbabwe, only that we should follow the same rules for one country that we set down when dealing with another, oil or no oil.

 

So only people who live in a UK style democratic country count when it comes to a world vote in your mind? So what if China is a Communist dictatorship, the people who live there have as many rights as we do on the international stage, man for man. It is hard to take what you say seriously when you make such sweeping statement when it comes to Russia's reasons or China's reasons for not wanting action but you buy into the rhetoric the UK government is spewing out by the gallon when it comes to their reasons for wanting action. It could be argued to great effect we too live in a dictatorship, ours is smarter though, it gives the impression to everyone that its a democratic nation but when it comes to listening to and acting on the will of the people Blair and now Cameron are just as deaf as the Chairman, the Crown Prince and Muammar. All the polls have shown that only around 30-35% of Brits are for the action in Libya but Cameron knows best, 2m people marched in protest to our involvement in Iraq before it was finalised, did they listen... ah the joys of British democracy.

 

We act when we decide it suits us and sit back when there is no gain to our own country. To pretend this has been done to protect children from being shelled is only fooling ourselves, this is about securing the black stuff. Fool me once (Iraq), shame on you, As its the age of the chav, fool me twice (Afghanistan) shame on you again, fool me a third time though (Libya) and we deserve all we get... which includes the terrorism, the bombing and political fall out from the Arab States over the next 20-30 years. You say its our duty to protect a child in Libya, even if our actions there puts our own children at risk?

[Bluto10]

what about the h-bomb, has that been dropped yet?

[Crossbow]

So we should only intervene when we can win then? Not exactly a moral high ground, how does that sit in this moral bank account you've been speaking about? I'd say pretty overdrawn and with loads of charges...

 

I'll deal with this bit by bit - I approve of the idea in Zim, don't think we should start into a situation where we can't make things better; so I accept there is a relative rather than absolute stance here.

 

The US are taking a "back seat in operations" within the next 48 hours. There has also been a question over the legality of US involvement as it hasnt been run past congress yet. Yes the US has fired some missiles and sent over a few spy planes and drones but that is the extent of their involvement. The US are not unilaterally backing action and the US people are not wanting to get involved at all.

 

US plane downed today - they may have fired missiles and drones too - we are talking about stopping the bad man indscriminately killing people by attacking military positions from the air not intervening by marching down Tripoli High Street with the band playing.

 

 

There is plenty of reports to hark back to from both sides... I'm only stating the fact though that the news we receive from inside Libya, be that from Libyan sources or Western is propaganda to serve either sides agenda. The UK want war, oil and rid of Gaddafi so we hear about mass murder, shelling of his own people - by his own they actually mean revolutionaries, I for one would not welcome a Saudi led assault on my country and troops if we were in the middle of a revolution, would you - the murder of children (new one on me, heard plenty about the books of the missing etc but most are young men). We then hear about his backing of terrorists, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Look at Che Guevara, lauded in parts of South America, classed as no more than a murderer in Northern Africa. Its all about perspective...

 

Concur absolutely with sentiments about not wanting Saudi intervention in a revolution - though wouldn't mind too much if someone stopped a nutter blowing up civilians indiscriminantly and allowed me to get on with living my life. If you think shelling Benghazi and all the other towns he's taken didn't kill women and children then you are not schizophrenic you are arguing for the sake of it

 

 

 

What you call schizophrenic I call double standards. I've never argued that we shouldnt go into Libya because we didnt in Zimbabwe, only that we should follow the same rules for one country that we set down when dealing with another, oil or no oil.

 

And I hope we do so too, my stance is simple stop the bad man killing people indiscriminantly if we can - is yours to let him?

 

 

So only people who live in a UK style democratic country count when it comes to a world vote in your mind? So what if China is a Communist dictatorship, the people who live there have as many rights as we do on the international stage, man for man. It is hard to take what you say seriously when you make such sweeping statement when it comes to Russia's reasons or China's reasons for not wanting action but you buy into the rhetoric the UK government is spewing out by the gallon when it comes to their reasons for wanting action. It could be argued to great effect we too live in a dictatorship, ours is smarter though, it gives the impression to everyone that its a democratic nation but when it comes to listening to and acting on the will of the people Blair and now Cameron are just as deaf as the Chairman, the Crown Prince and Muammar. All the polls have shown that only around 30-35% of Brits are for the action in Libya but Cameron knows best, 2m people marched in protest to our involvement in Iraq before it was finalised, did they listen... ah the joys of British democracy.

 

We act when we decide it suits us and sit back when there is no gain to our own country. To pretend this has been done to protect children from being shelled is only fooling ourselves, this is about securing the black stuff. Fool me once (Iraq), shame on you, As its the age of the chav, fool me twice (Afghanistan) shame on you again, fool me a third time though (Libya) and we deserve all we get... which includes the terrorism, the bombing and political fall out from the Arab States over the next 20-30 years. You say its our duty to protect a child in Libya, even if our actions there puts our own children at risk?

 

You were suggsting that I shouldn't back the stopping of Gaddafi shelling civilians because the majority of the world was abstaining rather than supporting the action in the UN. Frankly there are human right abuses in China (as well as in the UK - but more gross in China) that it would be good to stop. I don't feel their abstension weaknes the moral case in the slightest. I didn't say anything about Russias or Chinas reasonos - you suggested that the their population size meant I should bow to that block vote phenomenon; sorry don't buy it.

 

What was our gain in Bosnia?

 

What is our gain in Afghanistan?

 

I can see the oil argument in Iraq though I'm not certain how UK plc benefitted (but that may be ignorance).

 

but oil is a straw man - I am not interested in that - I am interested in the deaths of the innocents - make up your own validity if you wish - that is not what resolution 1973 is all about. Yes there can be repurcusions if the bad man attacks us too - that is a risk but then this bad man has already killed Scottish/British women and children so you can argue both sides of that one (presuming you believe him responsible for Lockerbie and/or funding the IRA).

 

I am giving support to stopping him shelling towns and cities indiscriminantly. There are risks, big ones; there is horror for people if we don't as well.

[Jonty]

So we should only intervene when we can win then? Not exactly a moral high ground, how does that sit in this moral bank account you've been speaking about? I'd say pretty overdrawn and with loads of charges...

 

The US are taking a "back seat in operations" within the next 48 hours. There has also been a question over the legality of US involvement as it hasnt been run past congress yet. Yes the US has fired some missiles and sent over a few spy planes and drones but that is the extent of their involvement. The US are not unilaterally backing action and the US people are not wanting to get involved at all.

 

There is plenty of reports to hark back to from both sides... I'm only stating the fact though that the news we receive from inside Libya, be that from Libyan sources or Western is propaganda to serve either sides agenda. The UK want war, oil and rid of Gaddafi so we hear about mass murder, shelling of his own people - by his own they actually mean revolutionaries, I for one would not welcome a Saudi led assault on my country and troops if we were in the middle of a revolution, would you - the murder of children (new one on me, heard plenty about the books of the missing etc but most are young men). We then hear about his backing of terrorists, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Look at Che Guevara, lauded in parts of South America, classed as no more than a murderer in Northern Africa. Its all about perspective...

 

What you call schizophrenic I call double standards. I've never argued that we shouldnt go into Libya because we didnt in Zimbabwe, only that we should follow the same rules for one country that we set down when dealing with another, oil or no oil.

 

So only people who live in a UK style democratic country count when it comes to a world vote in your mind? So what if China is a Communist dictatorship, the people who live there have as many rights as we do on the international stage, man for man. It is hard to take what you say seriously when you make such sweeping statement when it comes to Russia's reasons or China's reasons for not wanting action but you buy into the rhetoric the UK government is spewing out by the gallon when it comes to their reasons for wanting action. It could be argued to great effect we too live in a dictatorship, ours is smarter though, it gives the impression to everyone that its a democratic nation but when it comes to listening to and acting on the will of the people Blair and now Cameron are just as deaf as the Chairman, the Crown Prince and Muammar. All the polls have shown that only around 30-35% of Brits are for the action in Libya but Cameron knows best, 2m people marched in protest to our involvement in Iraq before it was finalised, did they listen... ah the joys of British democracy.

 

We act when we decide it suits us and sit back when there is no gain to our own country. To pretend this has been done to protect children from being shelled is only fooling ourselves, this is about securing the black stuff. Fool me once (Iraq), shame on you, As its the age of the chav, fool me twice (Afghanistan) shame on you again, fool me a third time though (Libya) and we deserve all we get... which includes the terrorism, the bombing and political fall out from the Arab States over the next 20-30 years. You say its our duty to protect a child in Libya, even if our actions there puts our own children at risk?

 

Fortunately the UK isn't governed by the results of opinion polls but by an elected parliament, which voted in favour of the action in Libya by 557 votes to 13. If that isn't a democratic mandate then what is?

 

And where's all the oil in Afghanistan exactly?

[tup]

And where's all the oil in Afghanistan exactly?

 

Pipeline to the Caspian Sea runs through Afghanistan, to Georgia, where the Yanks can deal with the contents free of banditry.

 

Afghanistan is territorially crucial although largely desolate in it's own right.

[spamspamspam]

How long exactly would your time frame be for 'making things better'? 10 years? thats how long we've been in Afghanistan now, are things better there? 8 years? Thats how long we've been in Iraq... Are things better there??

 

Bosnia - We entered the Bosnian conflict for lots of reasons, main reason being to make sure it didnt spill into Europe and Russia. There were several Christian crusaders from Greece, Germany, Austria, Russia, Italy and some from the UK already there fighting for God. Europe couldnt afford the overspill and Russia couldnt handle the instability it would have caused, they were unstable enough after the break up of the USSR. The genocide was a side issue at the time unfortunately, sad but true.

 

So IMO and the opinion of a lot of political heavy weights we entered Bosnia for self preservation.

 

Afghanistan - We went to Afghanistan mainly for opium. We were led to believe this war was part of the war on terror, we were told Bin Laden was in hiding here... You would think the first acts of an invading force would be to feed the populous, assist in rebuilding and to ensure any Al Qaeda cells inside the country and all training camps were destroyed along with catching or at least tracking down Global Enemy Number One. We in fact went straight to the poppy fields and instead of bombing the hills and mountain strongholds of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda we bombed flowers.

 

Heroin trade, I suppose its been a couple of hundred years since we Brits have had a drug war so this was as good a time as any.

 

You were suggsting that I shouldn't back the stopping of Gaddafi shelling civilians because the majority of the world was abstaining rather than supporting the action in the UN. Frankly there are human right abuses in China (as well as in the UK - but more gross in China) that it would be good to stop. I don't feel their abstension weaknes the moral case in the slightest. I didn't say anything about Russias or Chinas reasonos - you suggested that the their population size meant I should bow to that block vote phenomenon; sorry don't buy it.

 

Think you've picked up the wrong end of a shitty stick here. I've never said you should stop backing anything at all, I've said the reasons we've been fed by our government are utter bollocks and if you buy into them then you need to look deeper. I've also said we have no right to actually do what we are doing in Libya, trying to decide the outcome of a civil war. It may have humanitarian issues if we leave it be and allow them to sort out their own politics but it is the right and just thing to do IMO. You keep going on about these children that need saved from bombs yet I've still to see a report from any news agency that categorically states Gaddafi has bombed children indiscriminately. I've seen reports that rebels have been shot at by tanks and that fighter planes were scrambled by him. I've seen reports that say children have been hurt in the fighting. Who's children, would it be the rebels children, wouldnt the rebel parents be responsible for the safety of their children? Dont know about you but personally if I had a child and I was in that situation I would get the f**k out of dodge with my kid rather than picking up guns and going to fight with them in tow.

 

I never suggested you should bow to China, I would suggest practising that though, they will rule the world in good time but thats another story... I did say however that you are holding up democratic freedom from a dictator as being a good reason to invade. I pointed out that democratically there are more against this no fly zone than for it so if we are going to be true to these democratic values then we should step back and allow things to play out.

 

I dont agree with the way Gaddafi runs his country but it is his to run. People in general go on about our freedoms in Western society and how our way is the fairest way to live but personally I dont feel we live in the democratic utopia we are led to believe we live in. I'd go as far as to say the rules and regulations we live under in todays Britain are just as dictatorial as those in Iran, Korea and Libya, the only difference is they are hidden better and the outcome is usually less severe when you break them.

 

Countries dont enter wars to save people, they enter wars for territory, wealth or self preservation. Human rights is just a nice buzzy catchphrase that allows those in power to mask the real reasons, most of which would turn the stomach of the man on the street but because of human nature are everyday occurrence, from the people who keep those in power in power. Its gives us a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside to think we as a species have managed to rise above our primal instincts but for the most part we havent, people like Mugabi, Gaddafi, Hussain and Kim Jong-il are proof of that if it is ever needed.

[tup]

Afghanistan - We went to Afghanistan mainly for opium.

 

Incorrect, we don't give a f**k about that, and indeed faced such fierce resistance from the locals when we tried destroying crops, that eventually we gave up under the mutual understanding that roadside and suicide bombings would cease.

 

Nor did we go to find Bin Laden, given he's an agent of the CIA.

 

We went there to build a large, modern highway and a pipeline to enable the swift transportation of oil from the Middle East to Europe. We killed anyone who got in the way of this project.

[spamspamspam]

Fortunately the UK isn't governed by the results of opinion polls but by an elected parliament, which voted in favour of the action in Libya by 557 votes to 13. If that isn't a democratic mandate then what is?

 

And where's all the oil in Afghanistan exactly?

 

LOL what is an election about then?

 

As for the vote for action in Libya, the MP's did as the whips demanded. Not exactly a free thinking party system in the UK.

 

 

See Afghan explanation below, they had Opium which is worth a hell of a lot more kilo to litre than oil

[Jonty]

How long exactly would your time frame be for 'making things better'? 10 years? thats how long we've been in Afghanistan now, are things better there? 8 years? Thats how long we've been in Iraq... Are things better there??

 

Bosnia - We entered the Bosnian conflict for lots of reasons, main reason being to make sure it didnt spill into Europe and Russia. There were several Christian crusaders from Greece, Germany, Austria, Russia, Italy and some from the UK already there fighting for God. Europe couldnt afford the overspill and Russia couldnt handle the instability it would have caused, they were unstable enough after the break up of the USSR. The genocide was a side issue at the time unfortunately, sad but true.

 

So IMO and the opinion of a lot of political heavy weights we entered Bosnia for self preservation.

 

Afghanistan - We went to Afghanistan mainly for opium. We were led to believe this war was part of the war on terror, we were told Bin Laden was in hiding here... You would think the first acts of an invading force would be to feed the populous, assist in rebuilding and to ensure any Al Qaeda cells inside the country and all training camps were destroyed along with catching or at least tracking down Global Enemy Number One. We in fact went straight to the poppy fields and instead of bombing the hills and mountain strongholds of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda we bombed flowers. Heroin trade, I suppose its been a couple of hundred years since we Brits have had a drug war so this was as good a time as any.

 

 

 

Think you've picked up the wrong end of a shitty stick here. I've never said you should stop backing anything at all, I've said the reasons we've been fed by our government are utter bollocks and if you buy into them then you need to look deeper. I've also said we have no right to actually do what we are doing in Libya, trying to decide the outcome of a civil war. It may have humanitarian issues if we leave it be and allow them to sort out their own politics but it is the right and just thing to do IMO. You keep going on about these children that need saved from bombs yet I've still to see a report from any news agency that categorically states Gaddafi has bombed children indiscriminately. I've seen reports that rebels have been shot at by tanks and that fighter planes were scrambled by him. I've seen reports that say children have been hurt in the fighting. Who's children, would it be the rebels children, wouldnt the rebel parents be responsible for the safety of their children? Dont know about you but personally if I had a child and I was in that situation I would get the f**k out of dodge with my kid rather than picking up guns and going to fight with them in tow.

 

I never suggested you should bow to China, I would suggest practising that though, they will rule the world in good time but thats another story... I did say however that you are holding up democratic freedom from a dictator as being a good reason to invade. I pointed out that democratically there are more against this no fly zone than for it so if we are going to be true to these democratic values then we should step back and allow things to play out.

 

I dont agree with the way Gaddafi runs his country but it is his to run. People in general go on about our freedoms in Western society and how our way is the fairest way to live but personally I dont feel we live in the democratic utopia we are led to believe we live in. I'd go as far as to say the rules and regulations we live under in todays Britain are just as dictatorial as those in Iran, Korea and Libya, the only difference is they are hidden better and the outcome is usually less severe when you break them.

 

Countries dont enter wars to save people, they enter wars for territory, wealth or self preservation. Human rights is just a nice buzzy catchphrase that allows those in power to mask the real reasons, most of which would turn the stomach of the man on the street but because of human nature are everyday occurrence, from the people who keep those in power in power. Its gives us a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside to think we as a species have managed to rise above our primal instincts but for the most part we havent, people like Mugabi, Gaddafi, Hussain and Kim Jong-il are proof of that if it is ever needed.

 

Except for the fact that Heroin production has exploded since the coalition invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The Taliban were against heroin and destroyed the opium crop, though for religious reasons, rather than any desire to protect western junkies.

[Jonty]

LOL what is an election about then?

 

As for the vote for action in Libya, the MP's did as the whips demanded. Not exactly a free thinking party system in the UK.

 

 

See Afghan explanation below, they had Opium which is worth a hell of a lot more kilo to litre than oil

 

Exactly - we had an election last May, so a little churlish now to question the legitmately sanctioned decisions of the parliament "we" all elected.

 

From Wikipedia - "Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004

[spamspamspam]

Incorrect, we don't give a f**k about that, and indeed faced such fierce resistance from the locals when we tried destroying crops, that eventually we gave up under the mutual understanding that roadside and suicide bombings would cease.

 

Nor did we go to find Bin Laden, given he's an agent of the CIA.

 

We went there to build a large, modern highway and a pipeline to enable the swift transportation of oil from the Middle East to Europe. We killed anyone who got in the way of this project.

 

 

aye TUP we burned it to stop the Taliban having any when we first went in, now we control the growth and sale of it for medical purposes. Last I checked opium was worth around 160 USD per kilo, well worth the hassle and troops it takes to guard it.

 

And yes, pipeline access taking gas from Russia to Europe was also a massive factor.

[Jonty]

aye TUP we burned it to stop the Taliban having any when we first went in, now we control the growth and sale of it for medical purposes. Last I checked opium was worth around 160 USD per kilo, well worth the hassle and troops it takes to guard it.

 

And yes, pipeline access taking gas from Russia to Europe was also a massive factor.

 

Have you guys ever actually looked at a globe - explain what we are bypassing by routing a pipeline through Afghanistan, given the country is located to the east of the oil producing regions of the middle east, the Caspian, and Russia.

[tup]

aye TUP we burned it to stop the Taliban having any when we first went in, now we control the growth and sale of it for medical purposes. Last I checked opium was worth around 160 USD per kilo, well worth the hassle and troops it takes to guard it.

 

And yes, pipeline access taking gas from Russia to Europe was also a massive factor.

 

If we leave them to fire on with the heroin trade, which comes through Turkey into the massively lucrative European market, they will leave us to take the oil and gas through their country.

 

That's where we're at with them, a tacit understanding, but one which took some time, and considerable loss of life, to establish.

 

We tried to commandeer their drug trade, but the loss of soldier after soldier created a massive strain on UK & US politicians, one which forced them to alter their stance considerably. When you get the best part of 30,000 bodybags coming home, as the US did, you have to acknowledge there's an issue with your policy.

 

Now we both just get on with it, them with the drugs, us with the oil.

 

And funnily enough there have been very few suicide bombings or soldiers killed in recent times.