Oh look.

[avevale_intelligencer]

We seem to be gearing up for another war. In Libya this time.

it never. bloody. fails.

Comments

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

True, Zandear, but this time, at least, it's less trumped-up, as Qadaffi (daffy?) is brutalizing his citizens, and it's to stop that.

[erisiansaint]

I second this.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't doubt the cause is just, although I do recall them telling us that about Saddam as well, and doubtless it was true then as well.

The thing is, there are any number of countries in the world into which we could, if we wished, boldly march with fingers wagging and say "you shouldn't be doing that. Let us show you right from wrong." Let's face it, we Brits wrote the three-volume encyclopedia on that kind of behaviour, and the fact that it got us cheap tea for a couple of centuries was just a side benefit.

I don't want to make light of the troubles in Libya, or to say "it's not my problem" or "their culture is different, we have no right to interfere." If the Libyans are unhappy with Gaddafi and want our help to get rid of him, then they should have it, no question. Bad rulers should be ousted.

And meanwhile, just as it did in the eighties and the nineties and the last decade as well, this exercise will be jolly useful for the British government, in stirring up patriotic xenophobia and taking people's minds off the ongoing and wilful destruction of our social framework. It may not be as brutal as what Gaddafi is doing to his people, but it is no less a crime.

And who is going to oust our bad rulers for us?

[wolfette]

my concern is that if "we" (the West) march in and get rid of Gadaffi for the rebels (or help them in a significant way) then the pro-Gadaffi side can claim that the revolution "wasn't valid" and the regime change "imposed" from outside ... and the war will go on for generations.

Peacekeeping force and a highly monitored election maybe?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That might defer the problem for a while. As long as there is a side that Gaddafi represents, and another side that opposes that side, they're going to want to fight. It's a human thing.

Let's face it, the only reason your lot and my lot aren't still fighting is that we got tired and decided to play football instead more enlightened counsels prevailed... :D

[dickgloucester.livejournal.com]

We vote them out next time, Zander, we vote them out. And we stand for Parliament ourselves.

[occams_pyramid]

http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/military-action-against-libya-is-not-illegal-not-about-democracy-and-very-limited/

[dickgloucester.livejournal.com]

The armed forces should be pleased - good argument for avoiding all those pesky cuts.

The rest of us just get to feel them elsewhere.

Lybia

[lewis-p-bear.livejournal.com]

And what you bet we lose this one as well!

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

I don't know the cause is just. They sold the last one to us, at one point, as getting rid of a "brutal dictator."

I'm very skeptical about war. I don't care if it's France or the US or whichever country at the lead. It's almost always about economics. Why Libya? Why not any one tiny country in the last twenty years that has been in civil war, where people have been slaughtered by the thousands?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Just causes are ten a penny. You can always find one if you look hard enough. And as I said, I don't deny that the man is doing nasty things, and I agree that in principle people who use their power to do nasty things ought to have that power removed. Though it does seem to me that if Gaddafi is a notably sable kettle, we are a more than equally fuliginous pot.

The real motivation, as you say, is virtually certain to be either economic or political expediency. One of my flist blames Obama, but then he would. I think it's more likely to be our lot as prime motivators, and I am quite convinced that they are perfectly capable of setting a military action in motion, ordering the deaths of unknown numbers of people, as an exciting sideshow to draw attention away from the men behind the curtain and what they might be doing. It's happened before.

And it will inevitably (a) escalate beyond the terms of the SCR; (b) last longer and cost more than anyone envisaged; (c) result in a worse situation in Libya than the one it was supposedly intended to correct. I feel utterly safe in making this prediction. I just wish I didn't have to.