Originally Posted by rachelk

That is still one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen. We all watched on the news the blue berets helping to load people onto buses, separating the men from the women and children and nobody did anything to stop it.

Originally Posted by rachelk

But sometimes you just can't stand by and watch .

Originally Posted by rachelk

I really don't know how I feel about this. I don't like the idea of intervening in other people's disputes and I'm deeply suspicious of the motives for doing so.

But sometimes you just can't stand by and watch and I'd like to think that at least some of those who've voted for military action did so for the 'right' reasons.

Originally Posted by steviedeluxe

Fantastic post - karma given,

I'm afraid I can't praise Cameron for his actions so far. He came to power promising to avoid getting into world military actions a la Blair, but here we are bombing another country into the stone age. I know there was a UN resolution passed this time, but seeing as the two major hawks were Sarkozy and Cameron - two politicians seeing their ratings slump at home - it doesn't mean it's been a wise move. In fact the Tory government seem to have consistently got this conflict wrong from the start eg claiming G had gone off to Venezuela, that strange incident with the SAS bodyguards etc. I'm just hoping this latest stage is over within a short time (although I'm not over-optimistic). Otherwise we could see a long drawn-out civil war in Libya, which would be disastrous for the population. I still think Cameron has been keen to provoke this war in the hope of notching a win over a dictator and thus being able to smear Labour as the dictator's friend. He knows his economic policies are proving disastrous for Britain (not that Gordon's were any good either) and that the Lib dems will implode before the year is out. Thus, he's taken this gamble. The only plus point is that it stops him doing the same over Bahrein, Sudan etc. The UN will have learnt their lesson after this I think. Or is that misplaced hope

Originally Posted by jackytoo

Stevie I am sending you some karma for this, for once I agree with you

Bad as Gaddafi is how do they know the rag bag of rebels are actually a majority...and what will be waiting on the scene if he goes. It looks as if they have extended the mandate from the UN. More like regime change.

Originally Posted by steviedeluxe

Strange times indeed - thx for the backup and karma. I agree, we really don't know much about the Libyan opposition. Not that should matter to us - we should keep out of another countries internal affairs. Or should we be interfering in Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo, Bahrein, Tibet...etc etc? Political support ok, but sending the bombs over doesn't seem to have a high success rate... I just hope I'm wrong on this occasion.

Originally Posted by bil

In that case tear up the united nations, and say bollocks to it all. If the ruler of a country wants to butcher his own people, that's none of our business, right?

Originally Posted by steviedeluxe

I think there's a huge difference between having boycotts, sanctions etc. and sending the bombs over. Ok, so sanctions don't always work, but it seems that the bombing nearly always creates bigger problems. Still hoping I'm wrong on this occasion, but if we see a protracted war within Libya the normal folks are surely going to come off worse?

Originally Posted by rugbymatt

No... they never have, ever

Originally Posted by Sally Redux

I think they brought some pressure to bear on South Africa.

Originally Posted by steviedeluxe

but here we are bombing another country into the stone age.

Originally Posted by steviedeluxe

You're right Sally, but RM will disagree and claim he knows best and we mere mortals know nothing. Not a lot of point engaging with him when he can write something like this:

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly

Er,excuse me, but wheres your evidence that we're bombing another country into the stoneage ?????????????

I've heard some claptrap, but that takes the biscuit, in view of the fact that only military targets have been attacked and the utmost care has been taken to try and avoid civilian casualties and residential areas.

I have little doubt that if action hadn't been pushed through and taken just in the nick of time to prevent mass slaughter, you'd have been first on the bandwagon complaining.