That's a mighty big assumption. And totally incorrect. I will admit that I initially thought the Afghanistan invasion was warranted, but events have proven me wrong. I really don't see how going around the world and bombing places is getting things done. Maybe there was a certain amount of stability created in Serbia/Kosovo but I suspect that will all kick off again at some point.
You'd have more success in asking what my smart answer to the tricky problems is. Because to be truthful I don't have one. I just don't see where military intervention is going to produce anything positive. We'll see in Libya if I 'm wrong though. And I really hope I am wrong, because otherwise it'll be the population who suffers.

I'm not so sure it did, I think world pressure finally broke an already aging "Old Guard" of a minority group, the Afrikaans weren't particularly liked among the whites of SA let alone the Blacks and the time was right for change, plenty of places still did business with SA, as they have done with every other country under sanctions.... as I heard a commentator say today, "This isn't some sort of "keep off the grass" style sign, Gaddaffi IS mad, he IS psychotic and he HAS been killing his own people and as I said the other day, and its no reflection on you, but it makes me laugh when people scream "Its all about the oil!" like they never use a drop of the black stuff that makes the world turn and the lights go on....

Libya is not about protecting people, that would seem to go without saying.
There is an argument that it is about oil, or even influence in an oil area, but that is not overly convincing.

I am partial reminded of a quote, I say partial because I can neither remember it nor who spoke it. It was something along the lines of.....
War is not started by the big issues, but by trivial slights, it might have been Hobbes.

It seems to be true for Iraq, revenge for sins against the father, it seems to be true with tension with Iran, where the overthrowing of the Shah has never been forgiven. It could be argued with Afghanistan, where American could prove it would succeed where the Soviets failed.

It really really feels like it is the case with Libya. Where Lockerbie, Yvonne Fletcher, IRA arms, Entebbe all still to be simmering with those that wield the ax.

I love how these throw away comments of mine are nearly always picked up by you.... funny that eh?

That makes a lot of sense.

Well surprise,surprise.

You don't answer the question and don't supply a scrap of evidence to back your claim.

However clear evidence has been shown that tanks had already entered Benghazi and began the first stage of that which you wrongly accuse our own forces.

Had the rest of the force not been stopped in the nick of time, the result of the mass slaughter and destruction Gaddafi had promised doesn't bear thinking about.

You elect instead to sidetrack to other events,though no two are ever alike and nobody can predict the end game of this one, which is not our business anyway.
We can only hope that at some stage the ppl will have enough freedom and common sense to build for themselves a better future.

There seems to be a lot of discord amongst the allies. Italy is getting cold feet now. The French have faded away after initiating it and only the British appear to be bombing. Can't see any difference to what they did in iraq and the final death count has been far higher than saddam ever managed. I think Cameron and Haig are naive fools. I voted for them....I want my money back

I'm a trad Labour supporter, and I never trusted Blair with all his lies about Iraq.

So, I have to admit that I have more faith in Cameron with this. I agree with him. If this isn't the sort of thing we are meant to stop, then what is?

Well, here’s an opinion that made me think. Could it all be down to the human factor after all? Could a simple human emotion like revenge be responsible. In the case of Libya, the poster mentioned Lockerbie, IRA arms, Yvonne Fletcher and Entebbe; all things still on Western minds and considered injustices that have never been aired.

They’re being aired now, aren’t they.

And the mano a mano concept of the Bush’s always struck a cord with me, as well as a Western attempt to show that we can do better than the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I’m not so sure about avenging the overthrow of the Shah of Persia, but that would be the big one which I hope doesn’t happen.

Did you view the link I posted Bil ?

Ged away! I'd never have guessed!

Like this forum lol!

Jo xx

The problem for the media is that up until now the operation has gone far too well for their liking, so they are frantically scratching around looking for any chinks in the armour that they can play on.

It would be highly unlikely in any op such as this that so many participating countries could think exactly alike in every detail, however the fact that they got together reasonably quickly and agreed on some sort of positive action can only be regarded as a big plus.

No doubt a mistake will be made at some stage in the proceedings or maybe an aircraft will be downed and then they'll all be jumping up and down with great glee whilst criticising the operation from every possible remote angle they can dream up.

No, it kept redirecting me to a damn poker site that I couldn't get rid of. Give me a precis please?

With so many of those places, they were busy doing their own thing till the west came along and decided that the locals didn't know squat, and that we should run the oil ourselves, usually with a puppet ruler we kept in place.

No wonder they don't like us.

Given the evidence, Lockerbie was carried out by a terrorist group paid for by the Iranians after the downing of their passenger plane by the yanks.

Bush, mano a mano? This is the guy who daddy bought out of the draft with a cushy 'military' post in the US, and who couldn't even turn up for that. Wasn't there only one of the US hawks with Bush that had ever seen active service?

Mano a mano it ain't, I'm afraid.