UK, France, and others preparing to attack Libya.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Mainly because Undertaker is above everyone and he is king and no argument put against him is the correct one lol

Disprove my points then, instead of continuously posting little snide digs and then withdrawing from the debate.

the fact that you don't have the respect to reply to all of my post renders the question wheter you actually can respond to it. I'll ask again, how do you know if the reason given to us is fake? I certainly see it as a viable reason.

---------- Post added 21-03-2011 at 02:06 AM ----------



just though i'd post this.

I have responded to all of your post, i've explained that the real reason we are not going in for human rights and democracy (and i'll highlight it for you all) is because we have supported Gaddafi for decades and we continue to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain who are firing on their people as we speak. So it is not about human rights and democracy and how do I know? because of the past and indeed whats happening in the present. We have not cared and continue not to care about human rights or democracy, therefore the idea that 'we are going into Libya championing human rights and democracy' is nothing but war spin. (for a big example of war spin, see below - ring any bells?)

And as for John Bolton, he was part of the gang who told us that Saddam Hussein was somehow a threat to us, the west, and his neighbours (when infact he wasn't), along with the tale of how Saddam Hussein had WMD ready to to be fired at London within 45 minutes.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Technologic]

You wouldn't be complaining if you lived in Libya and the RAF saved your ass

[-:Undertaker:-]

You wouldn't be complaining if you lived in Libya and the RAF saved your ass

No I wouldn't, just the same for those who live in all dictatorships (when the Red Army 'liberated' Nazi Germany for example) - but we live in the real world, a world where you have blowback and where you have no money or moral authority to enforce these ideals. Why go into Libya now, why not back when Gaddafi was signing the oil contracts with Mr Blair whilst locking, torturing and executing those who opposed him? ahh thats right, its not about saving the people, democracy, human rights and the rest of it - its about oil and saving face, would you be prepared to die for those things? I doubt you would, so do not expect others to do it while our leaders pretend their dirty mission is some kind of heroric adventure for human rights.

If you are going to send our troops into harms way, at least have the respect to tell them the real reasons why they are going into a warzone - strangely enough, I don't think the serving men and women would be as keen to put their lives in the line then.

[Technologic]

I think you'll find those reasons outlined here....

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...htm#Resolution

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think you'll find those reasons outlined here....

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...htm#Resolution

Thats complete tripe, as shown by my numerous examples - heard it all before, 'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD' that he never had. We were supporting Gaddafi and his brutal regime right upto the point until Tripoli was surrounded and it looked as though he were toast, then we swapped sides and now we look like the fools we are. The same can be applied to Bahrain right now, as a sort of prototype of what happened in Libya.

What is your objection to our leaders telling the truth to the public for this war? don't you think the soldiers and the public deserve the truth?

[StefanWolves]

Yawn..

Thats complete tripe, as shown by my numerous examples - heard it all before, 'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD' that he never had. We were supporting Gaddafi and his brutal regime right upto the point until Tripoli was surrounded and it looked as though he were toast, then we swapped sides and now we look like the fools we are. The same can be applied to Bahrain right now, as a sort of prototype of what happened in Libya.

What is your objection to our leaders telling the truth to the public for this war? don't you think the soldiers and the public deserve the truth?

[Technologic]

Thats complete tripe, as shown by my numerous examples - heard it all before, 'to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD' that he never had. We were supporting Gaddafi and his brutal regime right upto the point until Tripoli was surrounded and it looked as though he were toast, then we swapped sides and now we look like the fools we are. The same can be applied to Bahrain right now, as a sort of prototype of what happened in Libya.

What is your objection to our leaders telling the truth to the public for this war? don't you think the soldiers and the public deserve the truth?

They are telling the truth... just because a few loony hippies think they aren't and that all problems can be solved with hugs and kisses does not mean they're liars.

UN > You in terms of the truth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are telling the truth... just because a few loony hippies think they aren't and that all problems can be solved with hugs and kisses does not mean they're liars.

UN > You in terms of the truth.

So what i'm saying about us supporting Gaddafi for over a decade, along with our continued support for Bahrain/Saudi Arabia is just made up is it?

[StefanWolves]

That was a different Government ffs. It was only right that western powers such as Tony Blair TRIED to get him in with the International community, but failed. If we hadnt have tried then would you be criticising?

So what i'm saying about us supporting Gaddafi for over a decade, along with our continued support for Bahrain/Saudi Arabia is just made up is it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That was a different Government ffs. It was only right that western powers such as Tony Blair TRIED to get him in with the International community, but failed. If we hadnt have tried then would you be criticising?

But he didn't change and it wasnt about him changing, hence why he never changed - it was so we could gain another 'friend' in the region and sign oil contracts. Gaddafi continued in his brutal ways before, during and after Mr Blair visited and signed the business deals. It was only a few weeks ago when the rebellion started (including in pro-western Egypt and Tunisia) that western leaders were slow to voice any support for the people until after the balance had tilted in favour of the rebels - the same occured in Libya, except it differed that Gaddafi made a comeback. He said it himself I recall, that his western friends had betrayed him - which they had.

Why is it that we only ever attack weak, anti-western brutal regimes who happen to have something we want? can you answer me that?