Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
That's because you're either (a) lying or (b) lack the most rudimentary of comprehension skills
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
That's because you're either (a) lying or (b) lack the most rudimentary of comprehension skills
Spion
I hear ya
Yeah, why not? Gadafi's forces were at the end of their supply lines, trying to enter a 1 million strong city, the stronghold of the rebels which had already seen off an entire garrison largely without firearms. Mechanised forces are all very well in the open but in city streets are a different matter.
Not when the one giving orders has no compunction about blowing up complete city blocks.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Sadly I think the rebels are that disorganised that they would not have put up an adequate defence and at some point many of them would have run for Tobruk.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Idaho
blah blah blah
As a resident of Benghazi I think I would have preferred not to live through months of shelling, snipers, etc.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Im sure the people of Sirte and Tripoli feel the same
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Some good news today. Those poor bastards
Spion
I hear ya
All crystal ball gazing. The residents of Benghazi had seen off an entire garrison already. How would govt troops have supported themselves in such a hostile city?
Spion
I hear ya
And Benghazi isn't Sarajevo. That's all part of the myth-making that sparked this intervention don't forget
Idaho
blah blah blah
Isn't Sarajevo? What does that mean?
Idaho
blah blah blah
So what are you proposing other than expressing how impossible the situation is?
Spion
I hear ya
For how long? What were they going to eat and drink while they did it? And if they went into town how long would they last in a hostile city?An artillery regiment outside benghazi could have done and awful lot of damage
All speculation of course, and something we'll never know the answer to as elements of the rebel leadership were clearly gagging to partner with the great powers
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Why do you make the assumption that we in Britain can solve Libya's internal problems?
Why do you assume that action from foreign armies isn't going to make a bad situation worse?
Adding more guns and bombs to a war situation is very likely to increase the number of casualties. Haven't 'we' done enough damage already?
Spion
I hear ya
I mean your language of 'shelling and snipers' sounds exactly like the kind of 'Oh no, it'll be another Sarajevo' used to justify the great power intervention.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
a war load of artillery thats the morning
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I am in favour of the action so far because I think when Gaddafi's troops were at the gates of Benghazi we had to make a decision, whether to accept the defeat of the rebels and the sacking of Benghazi or whether to side with the rebels and save the city from an onslaught.
Now we are involved and the "no-fly zone plus" has served to deplete Gaddafi's tanks, rescue Benghazi and start to balance the forces a bit. I grant that it is not possible to speculate on the eventual end of the conflict but I think we are on the right side at least.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by that.. The U.N. coalition has destroyed quite a lot of Gaddafi tanks and infrastructure, at the moment we are leaving the rest to the rebels. I think they may need some more help of some kind, it would be great if Egypt could supply that.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I propose Britain minds its own business and stops trying to solve the worlds problems by military force. Frankly Britain, the US and France don't have a great record in this regard.
Spion
I hear ya
You are on the side of the oil companies and the next dictatorship in Libya
And AQIM LOL.
Idaho
blah blah blah
What scenario would oil companies not make loads of money?
Spion
I hear ya
Wrong question. What scenario do the oil companies want to see that would help them increase profits and control over Libyan oil? I suspect they'd like to see the nationalised oil co broken up, or at least better deals in terms of percentages they gain from pumping oil there. Also, foreign oil co.s that don't have a presence in Libya will hope to gain one. There are lots of reasons why western oil co.s and the governments that represent them should want to see a new government to do business with in Libya.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Oh you conspiraloon ...... of course silly me all this is about oil .. how could I have missed it..
Firstly Libya only accounts for 2% of oil and secondly BP had a nice cosy oil deal with Gaddafi already sown up. If anything this conflict and its uncertain end only puts BPs contract in jeapardy. Repsol and the like are already into Gaddafi for much more, Italy and Spain are Gaddafis biggest customers for his oil, if anything the war spoils their chances.
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
What dylans said
weltweit
Well-Known Member
No, actually I am not.
Spion
I hear ya
Which is a large amount of the cheapest to extract, highest quality oil. It can't be replaced by oil from elsewhere. You're trying to downplay the importance of Libyan oil to suit your argument, without evidence
All irrelevant. I'm not saying they started it. But, deals with Libya over oil are up for grabs due to events that were not initiated by the oils co.s. Their governments have to be in there to win influence with the new rulers of Libya
Spion
I hear ya
If you support the intervention by the great powers then you are. They are there to further their interests in Libya's oil
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
