Should Britain take part in the air bombing over Ghaddafi-held Libya?

[sihhi]

Currently British RAF warplanes flying from Britain's RAF bases, Dhekelia and Akrotiri in Cyprus, and warships in the Mediterranean are dropping bombs on chosen targets in Ghaddafi-held Libya. Should this continue?

No means Britain should not participate.

Yes means Britain should carry on.

If it's more complicated with seizure of assets, sanctions against BP, arming rebels explain you can explain below but the poll decision is NO or YES to aerial bombing.

 

[articul8]

Not in favour of the bombing, and fully in favour of maximum seizure of assets sanctions on trade with Gaddafi regime etc - but what (if anything) can be done to protect those communities who have risen up against them from collective punishment? I don't see the bombing doing this in anything but the most immediate terms. But it is a reasonable question to ask.

 

[danny la rouge]

No, Britain should not. Britain America and France are the last people who should be "helping" in the region. For all sorts of reasons.

 

[marty21]

Disco Dave is a desperate attempt to look like a Statesman.

 

[DownwardDog]

No. It's a load of bollocks.

 

[ernestolynch]

Of course not. Brits out etc.

 

[classicdish]

This thread would have been more interesting last week.

This week: should UN make statements about Yemen & Bahrain?

Next week: Syria & Algeria.

The week after: Saudi & Iran.

April: line-up to be confirmed

May: Russia & China

 

[articul8]

And the rebels are just fucked?

 

[London_Calling]

Depends if the want to contract with BP or not.

So France imports 15% of its oil imports from Libya. Who'd have thought.

 

[danny la rouge]

And the rebels are just fucked?

They may well be now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sould we be bombing Libya?

No. "We" shouldn't because "we" have complicity in making the entire region what it is; "we" shouldn't because "we" aren't acting altruistically, "we" are hoping to benefit from whatever new settlement is reached; "we" shouldn't because it will invariably cost Arab lives as well as British/French/Yank lives; "we" shouldn't because our intervention, while dressed in morality, is venal; "we" shouldn't because we're lighting Gaddafy a beacon to rally support to him that wouldn't normally go within a mile of him because "we" somehow believe he wouldn't use "radical Islamicist" support to bolster his dictatorship.

What "we" should do is utilise those methods already available, without setting precedents that will make interventionism in North Africa/the Middle East more acceptable to our political classes.

 

[cemertyone]

Sould we be bombing Libya?

No. "we" shouldn't because it will invariably cost Arab lives as well as British/French/Yank lives;
.

Personaly Could care less if it "costs" British/French and Yank lives...so much the better..
If there`s loads of them coming back in body bags it might even persude the public to
see this "intervention" for what it is nothing short of a grab for resources...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Personaly Could care less if it "costs" British/French and Yank lives...so much the better..
If there`s loads of them coming back in body bags it might even persude the public to
see this "intervention" for what it is nothing short of a grab for resources...

Any halfway sane person can see the current action as a resource grab without the need to see body-bags.

 

[ericjarvis]

No, Britain should not. Britain America and France are the last people who should be "helping" in the region. For all sorts of reasons.

This.

Like it's all worked out so well every time we've intervened militarily in the past. We should be willing to give logistical support to a UN peacekeeping action, but we have previous form in the region and shouldn't be risking making things worse.

 

[Gromit]

I'd rather our airforce was doing it than the yanks (who bomb anyone and everyone).

At least we're picky about bombing civilians.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd rather our airforce was doing it than the yanks (who bomb anyone and everyone).

At least we're picky about bombing civilians.

Should they be doing it at all?

 

[Gromit]

Should they be doing it at all?

Well that Gaddafi was a right nasty piece of work in that Last King of Scotland film so probably yes.

 

[DotCommunist]

its spite for arming the IRA and a massive dose of self interest. So no.

 

[articul8]

We should be willing to give logistical support to a UN peacekeeping action,.

UN peacekeepers have a record of standing by when people get butchered don't they?

 

[butchersapron]

Well that Gaddafi was a right nasty piece of work in that Last King of Scotland film so probably yes.

I heard your shit play just got canceled.

 

[Gromit]

It all comes down to whether or not you see the rebels as:

* Freedom fighters representing the views of the majority
or
* Anarchic disident terrorists who don't realise how benifcent the current government has been compared to a puppet democracy that will replace it.

Like Kuiwait, we're only there because they have oil but if we are we doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still doing the right thing isn't it?

 

[Gromit]

I heard your shit play just got canceled.

Do you refer to Jim Davidson? He'd be in favour of bombing the civilians wouldn't he?

 

[cemertyone]

Any halfway sane person can see the current action as a resource grab without the need to see body-bags.

yeah your right..i guess im just very anti-military...its my upbringing you see..just cant help meself sometimes..apols