UK, France, and others preparing to attack Libya.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was saying that if they hit us back twice as hard with weapons we have never even know they had, then we won't just let them do that surely. We would attack back if that occurred? In regards of shooting the tanks, it was mentioned that they will attack any tanks that were in control of Gaddafi forces who have not ceasefire and haven't moved out of the cities etc.

My point is that, as we [the west] are the aggressors (and have declared war on Gaddafi, not the other way around) i'm certainly not in support of us 'hitting back harder' as you say because we shouldn't be there in the first place. We had no legit reason to declare war on Libya yet we've gone and done it purely for the reasons I mentioned in my post back on page one of this thread; to save face and of course, the oil is a big factor in this.

I'm afraid Gaddafi would now have legitimacy in attacking our forces, whereas we do not have the legitimacy in attacking his forces.

[xxMATTGxx]

My point is that, as we [the west] are the aggressors (and have declared war on Gaddafi, not the other way around) i'm certainly not in support of us 'hitting back harder' as you say because we shouldn't be there in the first place. We had no reason to declare war on Libya yet we've gone and done it purely for the reasons I mentioned in my post back on page one of this thread; to save face and of course, the oil is a big factor in this.

I'm afraid Gaddafi would now have legitimacy in attacking our forces, whereas we do not have the legitimacy in attacking his forces.

We are there giving the people air cover, regardless if you like it or not. We are not sending troops in and that is something the Libyan people do not want. They are glad they have a no fly zone and that fighter jets are now enforcing this and will shoot at Gaddafi forces if needed. To be honest the whole "oil reason" bores me and this country is rather crap for oil anyway. I'm glad that the no-fly zone is now actually being enforced, even if it was late in terms of any action being taken and now we have give the people on the ground cover and progress.

[Marbian]

We all know what Gaddafi is like anyway, and I think most people know he has the mind to actually have a war, if it's the case. We are only covering the public, we haven't gone in there and said, hey, Gaddafi get the **** out this country. They aren't forcing him out, they are just telling him to stop using force onto his own people, and all we will do is protect civilians, even if it's taking him out of power.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The funny part was that, the aggressors (ourselves) get a bloody nose not expecting it.

We are there giving the people air cover, regardless if you like it or not. We are not sending troops in and that is something the Libyan people do not want. They are glad they have a no fly zone and that fighter jets are now enforcing this and will shoot at Gaddafi forces if needed. To be honest the whole "oil reason" bores me and this country is rather crap for oil anyway. I'm glad that the no-fly zone is now actually being enforces, even if it was late in terms of any action being taken and now we have give the people on the ground cover and progress.

This is an act of war, that could easily end up in a Vietnam/Afghanistan type outcome. In Vietnam they sent in 'advisors' which ended up turning into a full scale conflict. The same can be said for Afghanistan, a mission that was stated to be to merely to go in and get Bin Laden has ended up with the west stuck in a quagmire and stirring up more hatred which only results in blowback for the west on our own soil.

Why will you war hawks not listen to the lessons of history!?

Finally, the oil part; Libya has vast reserves with vested western interests there not to mention the vast part of the country is unexplored for oil reserves. If oil really wasn't a reason for intervening as you make out, then why have we not taken action in the past in Burma, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and so on? The same goes for Saudi Arabia, if the House of Saud falls (which would be against the wishes of the west) there is no doubt the west would take action to secure oil interests there.

Interestingly enough (and ironically), Saudi Arabia is playing a part in this military adventure - you couldn't make it up even if you tried to.

[GommeInc]

I like all this text of "weapons we didn't even know they had." Isn't that the same as saying "weapons we didn't even know we gave them"? So is this going to come under the "War with the Middle East" or does this war have another name? I'm slightly sceptical we're going to be of any help or make a good example, the "loyal" supporters of Gaddafi may be serving him under fear for themselves. It'll probably just add to more innocent lives being killed.

Are we not breaking the no fly zone by attacking ground based units? I always assumed a no fly zone meant we stop aircraft and other flight based weaponry, not ground units like tanks. It just seems like we've purposely gone to war, and using the no fly zone excuse as a cover in which to base the attacks.

[StefanWolves]

Undertaker why do you always turn threads into arguments?

Not everything is about money, if the Government wanted or needed money dont you think theyd just print some?

This is about morales, Gadaffi is a pig and you seem to think that we shouldnt get involved when he is killing his own citiizens.

Stop being pig ignorant.

---------- Post added 19-03-2011 at 06:55 PM ----------

Whoever -repd me at least have the balls to leave your name.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Undertaker why do you always turn threads into arguments?

Not everything is about money, if the Government wanted or needed money dont you think theyd just print some?

This is about morales, Gadaffi is a pig and you seem to think that we shouldnt get involved when he is killing his own citiizens.

Stop being pig ignorant.

You are being ignorant to history and the facts, I must admit though there are plenty of examples I can give and its rather easy to get lost so I will list them in simple form and if you think i'm making it up or that I am wrong then you can reply to them in a constructive manner and we'll discuss it. Much better than silly dismissive insults don't you think?

Libya was a western supported regime until a few weeks ago.
The people rose up and the west then sided with the winning side (until Gaddafi reversed this).

Egypt was a western supported regime until a few weeks ago.
The people rose up and the west then sided with the winning side.

Tunisia was a western supported regime until a few weeks ago.
The people rose up and the west then sided with the winning side.

Bahrain is a western supported regime at present and is now in trouble.
Bahrain has called in Saudi forces to put down the people whilst the west continues to support Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia is a western supported regime at present and is now in trouble.
Saudi Arabia continues to act in a brutal manner (see Bahrain) yet is still supported by the west.

A no fly zone is an act of war and only results in the situation spiralling out of control.
See past examples of quarmire type wars; Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan.

The United States is in $14tn+ of debt and is on the brink of bankruptcy.
The U.S. government continues to spend what it does not have and cannot afford.

The United Kingdom is in £7.9tn+ of debt and is on the brink of bankruptcy.
The British government continues to spend what it does not have and cannot afford.

Burma is a repressive regime that is anti-western but does not have any oil.
The west does not take any action.

Zimbabwe is a repressive regime that is anti-western but does not have any oil.
The west does not take any action.

Saudi Arabia is a repressive, pro-western regime that supplies the west with oil.
The west does not take any action, infact it actively cuddles upto the Saudi regime.

Iraq was under the control of a repressive, anti-western regime but did have oil.
The west took action and occupied that country whilst securing oil deals.

Afghanistan was under the control of a repressive, anti-western regime but did have mineral assets.
The west took action and occupied the country whilst 'stumbling' across vast lithium reserves.

I mean, I could go on but we'd be here for some time but you can surely see the pattern which simply disproves that any of our action is based on morality and it is actually the case that our actions are based on oil interests/logistical interests. So instead of calling me ignorant (which you'll find I am not, you are) please checkup on the facts, hypocrisy and history of modern western foreign policy and get back to me.

[xxMATTGxx]

I like all this text of "weapons we didn't even know they had." Isn't that the same as saying "weapons we didn't even know we gave them"? So is this going to come under the "War with the Middle East" or does this war have another name? I'm slightly sceptical we're going to be of any help or make a good example, the "loyal" supporters of Gaddafi may be serving him under fear for themselves. It'll probably just add to more innocent lives being killed.

Are we not breaking the no fly zone by attacking ground based units? I always assumed a no fly zone meant we stop aircraft and other flight based weaponry, not ground units like tanks. It just seems like we've purposely gone to war, and using the no fly zone excuse as a cover in which to base the attacks.

The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

[GommeInc]

The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

Would it not be easier to just go straight to Gaddafi? As far as I have read, the allied forces are just going gun crazy in places that will just add more tension. I would of thought the better option would be to line up an assault against wherever Gaddafi is and force him to surrender, that way his loyal followers may back down. It seems pointless just bombarding areas where he doesn't appear to be, when the war is with him and not his troops.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

Or in other words;

'America and her friends which kowtow to her line all agreed to take down the regime which they had supported and armed for decades upto the point when the Libyan people became fed up and it looked as though Gaddafi was toast. The west then switched sides in order to save face but Gaddafi made a last minute comeback and the west didn't want to face the choice between loss of its interests in Libya or having the spotlight put on its dirty deals with Gaddafi.

Meanwhile China and Russia abstained because it is none of their concern, and had they had voted against the resolution they would have faced demonisation by the west for being 'supporters of the regime' - which is what the west itself had done for decades prior to the Libyan uprising.'

where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

He's been doing that ever since he put himself into office 40 odd years ago, during the time when we were keen supporters of his regime along with supplying him with arms. Besides, isnt that what U.S.-supported Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are doing to their subjects right now as we speak?