...Should the West Arm Libya's Rebels?

[Simon]

...we could look at whether the UK REALLY need updated nuclear capability.

An interesting area for discussion, teamsaint. "We" again. I wonder who you mean. I assume you realise that it isn't a decision taken by some politician at the toss of a coin, though? I mean, I think people actually DO look at whether the UK needs to update its nuclear capability, before making the decision to do so or not.

You may not agree with their decision, of course, as is your right. But I'd be interested to hear the evidence you use on which to base your (no doubt well-researched and rational) conclusions.

bws Simon

[Simon]

But it's not my argument ...

Oh come on, ff. Don't be shy. It's a straightforward enough question - an a] or a b] will do..

So, was it

a] the morally right thing to do to intervene in Libya to protect those men, women and children whom Gaddi had sworn to "exterminate" for opposing him, or

b] should we have just let him get on with it on the grounds that it wasn't our problem.

Edit: in fact, why limit this to ff? A quick poll would be good. So come on, everbody, let's have your views. a] or b]. I'm not afraid to give mine - a] every time.

[french frank]

Oh come on, ff. Don't be shy. It's a straightforward enough question - an a] or a b] will do..

So, was it

a] the morally right thing to do to intervene in Libya to protect those men, women and children whom Gaddi had sworn to "exterminate" for opposing him, or

b] should we have just let him get on with it on the grounds that it wasn't our problem.

Edit: in fact, why limit this to ff? A quick poll would be good. So come on, everbody, let's have your views. a] or b]. I'm not afraid to give mine - a] every time.

Your 'quote' was from Mahlerei who hadn't expressed any opinion on that specific, one way or t'other. And until the last 24 hours (before you posted) it can't be said that there had been any intervention against Gaddafi by the West. The NATO action had merely been to protect civilians from the hostilities. And it was carried out.

That's why that post of yours was setting up a straw man.

[amateur51]

Oh come on, ff. Don't be shy. It's a straightforward enough question - an a] or a b] will do..

So, was it

a] the morally right thing to do to intervene in Libya to protect those men, women and children whom Gaddi had sworn to "exterminate" for opposing him, or

b] should we have just let him get on with it on the grounds that it wasn't our problem.

Edit: in fact, why limit this to ff? A quick poll would be good. So come on, everbody, let's have your views. a] or b]. I'm not afraid to give mine - a] every time.

What happened to:

c] We'd better get stuck in cos the dastardly French have & we don't want to lose out on the reconstruction bids like we did to Haliburton & Cheney in Iraq

or d] if we get stuck in & look useful it'll give us a reason to do a U-turn on the Defence cuts

[Bryn]

Oh what a cynical world outlook you surely do have, a51.

[teamsaint]

"We"? If "we" didn't, do you think the Chinese wouldn't? Doesn't make it right, of course - but makes it realistically comprehensible.

These situations will continue, with stones and clubs and fists if all the world's "modern" weapons magically disappeared tomorrow, as long as there are dictators about who value their own hold on power more than the welfare of their people and are prepared to commit mass murder to retain that power. How do you think the African tribes used to fight each other 10,000 years ago? "We" weren't shipping rockets to them then, I don't think.

o-o-o-o-o

As for your alleged straw man crack, ff - do me a favour. Read some posts. Then try to understand them. Thanks.

Very often we create the dictators, arm them, and then turn against them.
As for the argument that "if we don't, someone else will".........making it "comprehensible" isn't really a good enough reaon in my opinion.
WE, (western economies and governments) are close to the cause of many(not all) of the worlds problems, and the arms industry and the bankers are pulling a lot of the strings.
Sorry if thats not rational or well thought out enough, but it will do for me.

[teamsaint]

An interesting area for discussion, teamsaint. "We" again. I wonder who you mean. I assume you realise that it isn't a decision taken by some politician at the toss of a coin, though? I mean, I think people actually DO look at whether the UK needs to update its nuclear capability, before making the decision to do so or not.

You may not agree with their decision, of course, as is your right. But I'd be interested to hear the evidence you use on which to base your (no doubt well-researched and rational) conclusions.

bws Simon

Well part of the issue is , "which people are looking at it"?usually seems to be people who like big arms expenditure.
in my humble opinion, i don't think we need nuclear at all. But since we live in a democracy (well at least one in which you can choose between different ex public school boys anyway) if we decide to have nuclear arms I am pretty content that nobody much will take us on even with a very old system, if its maintained to a decent level. Attacking a country with an ageing trident system is not a risk I would take , and indeed even the most bonkers dictator is likely to take , IMO.

[ahinton]

"We"? If "we" didn't, do you think the Chinese wouldn't? Doesn't make it right, of course - but makes it realistically comprehensible.

Perhaps, but on the other hand, if "we" continued to do so, do you think that the Chinese would desist or stop? Wouldn't it actually make it worse if "we", the American, the Chinese and who knows who else added our weight to a competitive market for the supply of weapons of all kinds to the Libyan "rebels" as well as to those who still purport to support the now almost defunct régime?

[teamsaint]

Perhaps, but on the other hand, if "we" continued to do so, do you think that the Chinese would desist or stop? Wouldn't it actually make it worse if "we", the American, the Chinese and who knows who else added our weight to a competitive market for the supply of weapons of all kinds to the Libyan "rebels" as well as to those who still purport to support the now almost defunct régime?

we should all stop making and selling arms, as far as is humanly possible. And if we have to stop first, then so be it.

maybe, just maybe, things would get better.

[ahinton]

we should all stop making and selling arms, as far as is humanly possible. And if we have to stop first, then so be it.

maybe, just maybe, things would get better.

I agree; things certanly won't stand much chance of getting better until the global arms manufacture, broking, sales and distribution markets disintegrate.

[amateur51]

we should all stop making and selling arms, as far as is humanly possible. And if we have to stop first, then so be it.

maybe, just maybe, things would get better.

Good points, teamsaint. And UK needs to understand that it is no longer a world power, it can't be Community Support Police Officer to the USA's Sheriff, and it will be a lot better off in the long run if it does assume a new smaller role in the world.

[Mahlerei]

As someone who lost a good friend to a missile in Angola and who nearly lost his life in the Docklands bomb - explosives supposedly supplied by the good Colonel - I'd happily endorse an end to arms sales everywhere.

[BetweenTheStaves]

.... you are not permitted to change your 'quaint worldview' ....

That depends on whether there was a 'view' to change in the first place. Merely quoting the propaganda given out by Gaddafi's mouthpiece without any comment, can hardly be described as an 'informed view' - no matter how many emoticons you spray around the place.

[MrGongGong]

Good points, teamsaint. And UK needs to understand that it is no longer a world power, it can't be Community Support Police Officer to the USA's Sheriff, and it will be a lot better off in the long run if it does assume a new smaller role in the world.

absolutely
we really should "get over it"
maybe participating in the neutering of the UN wasn't such a good idea ??

[amateur51]

That depends on whether there was a 'view' to change in the first place. Merely quoting the propaganda given out by Gaddafi's mouthpiece without any comment, can hardly be described as an 'informed view' - no matter how many emoticons you spray around the place.

But you said there was a 'quaint worldview' BTS

Who's being inconsistent now?

You really don't like the emoticons, do you? - bless!

Nearest thing he comes to a genuine opinion on anything