Libya: What lousy timing

Hi Jek - whilst I understand your arguments about the dangers of intervention and the subsequent long-term problems that it may cause, I'm struggling to think of an example where simply allowing human right abuses to continue indefinitely and unchecked is a better solution.

It's estimated that 17 million Russians died under Stalin and 30 million Chinese under Mao.  Hitler killed around 6 million Jews before he was stopped.

It could also be argued that European imperialism was the cause of a great many of the present global tribal and religious difficulties.  of course this was unchecked.

My main concern is that the UK doesn't try and take too much on itself.  I think that it's about time that other responsible nations did their bit.

I lived in Libya in the 80's with a young family and the only time I ever felt under threat or in danger was when the American's decided to drop bombs on Tripoli for reasons that were later proved to be wrong. In the aftermath the Libyan people showed no hostility to us and were very kind nor was there any hostility from the authorities. I don't believe Libya is any worse than many other countries and better than a lot. I never saw any real poverty (although I guess we all have our own idea's of what real poverty is), it is not an Islamic hotspot  which I believe we should be thankful for and from what I can gather from the news it has moved on a lot since the eighties, things like international banks and ATM machines stuff we could only dream about...... It may not conform to our idea of democracy but to be honest I don't find the UK or Europe very democractic places these days, if they ever were. The situation in Libya should be left for the Libyans to sort out, and let us not forget the west welcomed Gadaffi in 1969 after the bloodless coup, be careful what you wish for. I truly believe it is no accident we intervene in oil producing areas and ignore others.

The Stop the War Coalition: I endorse every point they make:

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2299/27/

Jek

Hi. You hit  the nail firmly on the head. No oil, no intervention from either the UK or USA. Oil & oh boy are we interested,.

Its not about the people. Its about money & wealth . While  here in the Uk a muderer  gets out of jail  in  less than a quarter of the jail sentence,  a robber often gets & does the full term which in most cases is longer than   the murdered who had got anyway.   People will never & I mean NEVER play an important role to those we foolishly believe & trust  rule our country, Cameron Is like all the rest. Irrispective of political views its about making a name for themselves. Oil is the black gold & America & the Uk  will fight to the death, not the politicians death. Oh no. They live in their large houses in luxury whilst our brave men & women fight for them instead, For Queen &  country?. No its for for the glory of a politicians name .

J J 

A nice take on things: George Orwell sums it up pretty well:

No-one in their right mind can be happy to watch human rights abuses.  Which is precisely why politicians claim the intervention in Libya is about human rights abuse.  Gets public support and public opinion on their side.  Nothing like a war to boost your standing in the opinion polls.  But where do you get the idea that Libya is about human rights abuse, Mr Unhappy?  There is a civil war going on in Libya.  People get killed in a civil war.   All that's happening is that the West is simply taking sides to try to get the sort of government that will give them what they want in an immensely oil-rich state.  Gaddafi has always been a pain in the side of the US.  Now is the West's chance and they will grab it with both hands.  And you and others will be conned into supporting the manipulative politicians of the West.

So, Mr Unhappy and other supporters of intervention, what is your general global policy on intervening to prevent civil rights abuse anywhere in the world from which you can extrapolate to justify your policy on Libya?  Why do we intervene in Libya but not in China or Russia or Israel (apart from the fact that China and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council and carry a veto)?  Amnesty International will tell you that one of the worst countries for executing children convicted of murder is the USA.  Do we intervene to protect the human rights of those children? Oops no - the USA also has a veto in the Security Council.  If we intervened in every country where the govenment was corrupt or abusing basic human rights we would need an army of billions.  It just cannot be done.  There are too many candidates.

The point is that there is no consistent policy applied on a global basis.  There can't be.  It's just not a practical option.  So intervention is selective and it's opportunist.  The tactic is to try to whip up public opinion against a particular regime to justify the intervention which is always determined by an ulterior agenda - that has bugger all to do with concern over human rights and everything to do with maintaining the economic wellbeing (oil) and security of the advanced nations - primarily the USA.

The tragedy is that the lives of British servicemen will be lost in an immoral war that will not improve the lot of the people of Libya - about whom Cameron and Obama care not a jot. 

Hi Jek

If, as you suggest, we can't help everyone ( If we intervened in every country where the govenment was corrupt or abusing basic human rights we would need an army of billions.  It just cannot be done.  There are too many candidates), are you saying that we should 'help' no-one?  Given that every decion (that everyone makes) is influenced by an ulterior motive, what is so wrong with our alleged motives for 'interfering' in Libya? 

Hi reidpj,

So what you are saying is "We will use the Libyan civil war as an excuse to use the vastly superior military force of a group of  advanced white, Anglo Saxon, Protestant  nations to get rid of a Mongoloid, Arab, Muslim dictator who is hostile to our economic and security interests and replace him with  a government that will guarantee the supply of our oil at reasonable prices; and we will not use that same military force where there is no economic benefit to us".  Then that suggests that your criteria for intervention include:

- must be a country where their military is weak by comparison to ours (including any allies we can muster to help us);

- must have oil or some other natural resource that helps guarantee the lifestyle that we wish for our people or be important to our security interests;

- government of the country must be capable of being portrayed as a threat to our security; or give some other opportunity to whip up public opinion in the UK in favour of our military intervention.

We obviously have a different set of moral values pj.

Libya is a sovereign state.  There is stuff going on there that is tragic and I fully understand the desire to take action to stop the killing.  Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan were/are sovereign states where what was happening was tragic.  Western intervention was and is a total and miserable failure.  The first Gulf War involved the use of our military to repel an invasion of a sovereign state (Kuwait) by another (Iraq).  That intervention is one of the few that was justified in my view.  (The Falklands was another). Intervention to back one side in a civil war is never justified.  It doesn't work in the long run and causes the loss of life of potentially large numbers of British servicemen and women for no benefit to the people of the country concerned.  The motive for British involvement is normally no more than to further the ambition of certain British politicians.

This for me sums it all up perfectly well. I love the last line:

Jek

I fully supported your previous comments but have to disagree  re the Faulklands war. Firstly, the war would not have happend if the Dragon Thatcher had not withdrawn our ships from the area. Secondly how can we justify saying that the Faulklands are our territory when its hundreds of miles away from our shores.

 It would be like saying that the Isles of White & Man belong to the Argentinians.

No, we should not hold claim to an island that was grabbed not for the people but for where it was placed far to many years ago that as an "oldy" I do not remember .

We didnt like it when the Germans invaded Jersey  & rightly fought to get it back so why should the people of Argentinia like our claims to a small island of their shores.

There needs to be some perspective here I think. Not that this  has anything to do with the theme of this thread or does it ???

I agree with you hami.  Give the Falkands to the Argentinians; Ulster to the Irish; Gibraltar to Spain and the Ceuta/Melilla peninsular to Morocco.  But by agreement - not by force.  Of course, you'll never get agreement so basically we're stuck with it.  But if you allow countries to invade others, you have no international law and the successors of Mr Hitler would be telling you what you are allowed to think.  All I'm asking is for a consistent set of criteria that we apply globally.  But I'm not holding my breath.

--just remember who has to pay for this --it is us the tax payer!!

With all the Cuts pending and I can say this as I work in Education and about to be made redundant in June---as a result of the mess of gov measures--my husbands job may go later in the year so------------------

---How can we as a Country suddenly find the money to pay for 600,000 gallons of fuel, or something near those figures, used last night?????

oh and banker bonuses do not get me started when I have a family of 5 to feed on???????

Jek - "Give the Falkands to the Argentinians; Ulster to the Irish; Gibraltar to Spain" The problem with this idea is the people who live in these places (I am 1 of them!) don't agree and successive British governments have felt obliged to respect our wishes.

Libya is a different issue. I don't think that this is all about oil. Oil is important - we all use the stuff but Libya will produce it regardless of who is in charge. Lessons have been learned from past interventions and although it remains to be seen how this one will evolve it is possible that the Libyans themselves can sort it with a little help from above.

 it is possible that the Libyans themselves can sort it with a little help from above.

Jek - British \ Irish history is rather complex but as it is not what this thread is about I will simply say I don't agree with your perspective. 

International trade, travel and migration has made us all interdependant and the idea that what goes on in another "sovereign state" is none of our business is outdated. I do agree with some of the observations on why our government has chosen to get involved but do not agree that this makes intervention a bad thing.

I sincerely hope that your prediction of large scale loss of life (be they British Libyan or other) is not proved correct.

The Sun headline today is "Top Gun 1 Mad Dog 0" which suggests that, so long as our team doesn't get hurt we should just sit back and enjoy the game!

"Trouble was, the bad guy was winning and Obama and Cameron had bet on the good guys.  You see, leaving the locals involved in civil war to sort it out themselves is not good if the bad guys (whom you can't bully) win. "

I am left wondering how we know "the good guys" in this case are actually better than "the bad guys".

 In war, truth is the first casualty, according to a Greek philosopher and spoken by many since.

However, with reports coming out that Gaddafi had 8,000 of these so-called "bad guys" killed, then it was probably correct that the UN Security Council decided it was time to step in.  I don't know if any of this is true or whether it is a war casualty but I'm sure the leaders of the nations who voted (and, remember, no-one voted against) for the resolution must have decided that enough is enough and had ample intelligence reports to verify the facts.  I'm also sure that they wouldn't join together simply to boost their street cred in the world, especially with all the problems they fact at home.

Thatcher was mentioned earlier along with the Falklands.  However, according to Michael Heseltine, she initially ruled out sending a task force until several members of her cabinet and most of the Defence Chiefs threatened to resign.  It would have been seen as the biggest humilitation for the UK since the Suez crisis and, remember, was only a few years after Britain had been declared the "sick man of Europe".  Britain's standing was already at possibly the lowest ebb ever and not doing something would have made it a laughing stock (according to Heseltine).  

Personally, after serving in the Falklands in 82, I can tell you now that the gratitude from the islanders was heartfelt and genuine.  These people are as British as anyone from Cornwall or Norfolk etc.  Much of their trade prior to 82 was with Argentina but they had nothing in common with the South Americans.  They just wanted to live their lives in the quiet, peaceful way they had done for many years.  

"and had ample intelligence reports to verify the facts."

The bombing of Tripoli in 1986 was retaliation for a disco in Germany being blown up that US service personnel frequented. It was later proved that there was no Libyan involvement. I have very little faith in these so called intelligence reports, WMD spring to mind.

Black Flag (or Special Ops); a rose by any other name, are normal strategy for all conflicts. Pearl Harbor was a set-up, so was the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident'; the sinking of the Lusitania; the goading of Poland with the false promise that they would be supported, the naval cause of the U.S. Mexican War. I doubt there has ever been a conflict which hasn't been ignited by a 'convenient' reason for starting the conflagration.

With many military leaders, scientists and other pundits I tend to agree that there's much about 9/11 that hasn't been been adequately investigated or explained. No 9/11 and no Middle Eastern conflicts - or at least they would have been darned difficult to sell to an ever gullible electorate.

Just who and what was fuelling the Libyan rebellion. How odd that this small bunch of revolutionaries, when they failed, were replaced by nations prepared to do what they had failed to achieve. Obviously the laughably named 'coalition of the willing' will now be saying to themselves: 'Well, if you want a job doing properly I guess we have to do it ourselves.'

 Not according to this from Wiki:

On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed "La Belle" nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people and injuring 229 people who were spending the evening there. West Germany and the United States obtained cable transcripts from Libyan agents in East Germany who were involved in the attack.

More detailed information was retrieved years later when Stasi archives were investigated by the reunited Germany. Libyan agents who had carried out the operation from the Libyan embassy in East Germany were identified and prosecuted by Germany in the 1990s.^[5]

Even the BBC archives record that the bombing was Libya's response to the US patrol in the Gulf of Sirte.

And the stories of WMD were contrary to intelligence reports.  In fact, Blair had been told several times that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time and the UN weapons inspector had also confirmed this.  The "dodgy dossier" was not compiled from intelligence reports.  David Kelly also cast doubt on this dossier which had been issued by Blair's press secretary, Alistair Campbell and, although it stated the file had been collated from "Intelligence sources", no agency was credited with supplying this information.  

So, where do you get this It was later proved that there was no Libyan involvement.  (And please don't quote discredited sites such as aldeilis and pravda who actually blamed the Israelis.