Libya, another Iraq another lie

Those who want oil favour stability. Up until the present conflict in Lybia British and other international oil companies were happily doing business with Qaddafi. The LAST thing oil companies want is turmoil brought about by prolonged unrest or civil war.

It is makes much more economic sense to tolerate a strong man leader or a repressive dictator than to bomb your way to cheap oil: how much oil has been exported in the last two weeks? Only 1ship load apparently. Any suggestion, therefore, that this is some sort of conspiracy to steal Lybia's oil is just a tired old cliche.

IRA bombs civilians. In general it specifically places bombs in places where it can cause the most civilian deaths.

or so the british say, just like iraqs wmd

Those who want oil favour stability. Up until the present conflict in Lybia British and other international oil companies were happily doing business with Qaddafi. The LAST thing oil companies want is turmoil brought about by prolonged unrest or civil war.

It is makes much more economic sense to tolerate a strong man leader or a repressive dictator than to bomb your way to cheap oil: how much oil has been exported in the last two weeks? Only 1ship load apparently. Any suggestion, therefore, that this is some sort of conspiracy to steal Lybia's oil is just a tired old cliche.

UN FORCES KILL ANOTHER LOAD OF REBELS AND BLOW UP THEIR TANKS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997181

As I said in an earlier post, they will need to get used to being twatted by our brave flyboys. Still, at least they will be sure to duck next time they see a plane.

Giving them radios won't work either because they don't speak English.

UN staff do speak Arabic though. They were telling Gaddafi's troops to surrender over the airwaves a few weeks back.

Good point. We are not as white as we used be though.

Ok, so then it can't be racism....just plain old genocide.

Britain is still Britain... Sooo, it persecutes gay people and denies women rights!


I think it may be a bit hypercritical (is that how you spell it?) but in my opinion it helps the people of Libya, therefore I'm not hugely fused how hypocritical it is.

Some 40,000 civilians died during the Bosnian War a decade ago - another conflict with was tinged with race and religion. Libya's Berber population's divided into a number of tribal groups; some tribes (like the Warfalla) overwhelmingly support Gaddafi, while others overwhelmingly oppose him. There are religious divides too; Gaddafi, a secular ruler, has consistently claimed that the rebels are being manipulated by Islamists. It's not unreasonable to expect that we'd see similar numbers in this war, scaled down slightly because Libya's a smaller country than Yugoslavia was.

Gaddafi's a ruler who is famous for his brutality - and has been for decades. Do you really think that the West would save lives by not stopping Qaddafi from suppressing a rebellion with extreme violence? If saving lives and stopping people from dying is all that's really important, it was almost certainly a good idea for the West to assault Libya.

It's a simple arithmetic - more lives are likely to have been saved by military intervention than are being lost through warfare.

Now, there's something to be said for the fact that there are a lot of other humanitarian crises in the world where lives could be saved by military intervention. Rwanda stands out as perhaps the most powerful example of this in recent history; Sudan may well prove to be another such example. But while Western forces are acting selectively and only intervening in certain conflicts, does that somehow devalue the fact that lives are almost certainly being saved in the process?

Some 40,000 civilians died during the Bosnian War a decade ago - another conflict with was tinged with race and religion. Libya's Berber population's divided into a number of tribal groups; some tribes (like the Warfalla) overwhelmingly support Gaddafi, while others overwhelmingly oppose him. There are religious divides too; Gaddafi, a secular ruler, has consistently claimed that the rebels are being manipulated by Islamists. It's not unreasonable to expect that we'd see similar numbers in this war, scaled down slightly because Libya's a smaller country than Yugoslavia was.

Gaddafi's a ruler who is famous for his brutality - and has been for decades. Do you really think that the West would save lives by not stopping Qaddafi from suppressing a rebellion with extreme violence? If saving lives and stopping people from dying is all that's really important, it was almost certainly a good idea for the West to assault Libya.

It's a simple arithmetic - more lives are likely to have been saved by military intervention than are being lost through warfare.

Now, there's something to be said for the fact that there are a lot of other humanitarian crises in the world where lives could be saved by military intervention. Rwanda stands out as perhaps the most powerful example of this in recent history; Sudan may well prove to be another such example. But while Western forces are acting selectively and only intervening in certain conflicts, does that somehow devalue the fact that lives are almost certainly being saved in the process?

does it really.

and who are you to speak for the people of libya, british tax money is being used for killing people, im sure those mothers whose sons have been blown apart appreciate your opinions.

but its okay because you used the precautionary principle to validate the murder of foreigners.

not another iraq... but we shouldn't be getting involved.
britain trying to police the world again. it won't work. we'll end up with unnecessary deaths. great.

Ok, so then it can't be racism....just plain old genocide.

well lets look at what happened in iraq the americans siezed control of all iraqi oil fields, isn't it remotely funny that the only countries america and british attack are rich in oil?