From the BBC:
Nick Clegg has voiced his support for possible military intervention in Libya, saying that any action would be carried out in order to “uphold international law”.
The deputy prime minister, whose Liberal Democrat Party opposed the war in Iraq, said: “This is not Iraq. We are not going to war”.
His comments came after Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that UK forces would join an international operation to enforce a UN resolution which demands an end to attacks on Libyan civilians.
For the full story, and a video of the BBC’s interview with Nick Clegg, see the BBC website.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons: The Night
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
David Allen
Nonconformistradical
Chloe
David Raw
Jana
58 Comments
It had better not be.
No, it’s nothing like Iraq. Unlike Iraq, this is self-interest, pure and simple. Cameron said as much to the Scottish conservatives. Libya, with potentially hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, is right on Europe’s doorstep. Is it any wonder Sarkozy and Cameron are so keen on military intervention?
Perhaps someone should tell the members of the Armed Forces who might be killed in this affair and their families that it isn’t actually a war that they are engaged in. What a pathetic person Clegg actually is. I am a Tory hater in political terms but I have to salute what Cameron and Sarkozy have achieved for the Libyan people and so should Clegg and he should stop trying to have it every way.
When our service personell are sent into danger where they could die, by their country, then that’s a war and the sooner Clegg realises that the better.
Shall we all wait and see exactly what action is agreed on hey? Nothing like jumping the gun people
I agree that there are significant differences between the situation in Lybia and in Iraq.
There are very compelling reasons in the short term for supporting the current policy. I would hate to see the resistance crushed.
However what I would like to know is what is the actual war aims are?
If the policy is not regime change, then how is this policy sustainable in the longer term?
Tony, it’s not just Nick Clegg, it’s Lib Dems in general. They knew they were gonna get a kicking, but the alternative was worse. That, in my view, takes more principle than doing nothing. To knowingly put yourself in the shit to try and do what good you can with (let’s face it) meagre resources… i.e. 9% of the total MP’s.
I often wonder if all these people really would prefer a Tory minority, followed by an election and then a Tory majority government. I mean, I know 35% of the population would be of course, after all they would have voted hoping for that.
I would like to see some pretty solid evidence that any action accords with international law before we go messing around in the internal conflict of another sovereign state.
This intervention is in marked contrast to Iraq, and is much closer to following the principles of a “Just War”.
There is no doubt that Obama is reluctant to intervene, and so he should be; wars should never be entered into without reluctance. It is sanctioned by the Arab League and the UN; this is remarkable, and welcome.
David Cameron will get credit for his diplomatic offensive (and political bravery) in pressing for this to happen. But, ultimately, it’s Obama who carries the great burden of responsibility, and, having decided action was necessary, the response has been lightning fast when compared to previous interventions. Those who complain at the slowness of the US response should remember to failure of the West top intervene in Yugoslavia.
What astonishes me is the response of the Arab League – hardly a bastion of democracy and human rights. I think this reflects several important factors not widely acknowledged in analysis.
The revolutions elsewhere, and particularly in Eqypt, have fundamentally altered the political reality in the Arab world. Authoritarian regimes are now far more responsive to Arab public opinion. They may fear that impeding intervention in Libya is more likely to encourage revolution than encouraging intervention. They may calculate that helping Libya increases the chances of starting a successful reform process. It seems they regard the other two alternatives as worse: popular uprisings which sweep them away, or instituting the can of authoritarian crackdown that Gaddafi is trying.
Obama has helped create a different perception of the US. We can only hope that the misfortunes of war don’t result in tragedies that will reverse this.
Al Jazeera has, rather than foment the spirit of Al Qaeda, fomented the ideals of western liberalism. Who would have thought that ten years ago?
This revolutionary movement in the Arab world is extraordinary, particularly for those of us who remember the communist revolutionary movement of the last century. That was a movement with appalling consequences, spreading a failed political system. This movement, in my opinion, is enormously to the welcomed. Like any revolutionary change it is fraught with peril, but the people of the Arab world are just as deserving of freedom as any, anywhere.
But, like all such situations, everything is uncertain. Military interventions are never predictable. And revolutions have a tragic record of failing to deliver their hoped for changes.
The UN Resolution 7073 is the humane and international reason only for interervention in Libya but all lessons must be learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan at onset and national and international UK interests made clear by the PM.
Has Nick Clegg made any statement on helping the unarmed pro democracy campaigners in Yemen who’ve been butchered by the western backed tyrant or the brave pro democracy campaigners in Bahrain who are being hunted down like wild animals by the Bahraini and Saudi thugs?
If Clegg is going to use ‘international law’ as a justification then I’d like to see some serious attempts at reforms of the arbiters of that law. Libya is a member of UN Human Rights Council. It might be currently suspended but it was nevertheless an active member before. As long as the UN continues to give powers to some of the worlds most vicious rulers then it compromises its legal and moral authority. Tyrants are even less qualified than Nick Clegg to rule on the legalities of actions outwith the UN.
A brutal dictator who’s allegedly been murdering his people; talk of unilateral action against him without a UN resolution; a no fly zone. Iraq? No Libya this time. So what’s different? Well, the Lib Dems are in government, that’s what’s different. I agree with the humanitarian intervention but what really sticks in the craw is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. When Tony Blair went into Iraq ‘It’s all about oil’ the Lib Dems shouted. . Well, despite the trojan horse of humanitarian intervention it’s still all about oil. Libyan oil production has essentially ground to a halt and Western oil companies are desperately worried about retaining their assets in Libya. Both rebel forces and those loyal to Gadhafi are threatening to treat foreign corporations according to the sides chosen by their home countries. This makes things awfully difficult for some Western Oil companies that have assets which straddle both rebel territory and government territory. Apparently Gadhafi has been speaking to Russia, China and India about those countries taking over Libyan Oil production. I’ll bet that’s gone down like a rat sandwich in
the West. Don’t get me wrong, oil’s important. I need oil too. I live in an isolated part of the country without bus services so for me its essential for transport. But that was my situation when we went into Iraq and it hasn’t changed. So, intervene by all means to save the lives of ordinary people but don’t pretend that’s the main reason the West has gone into Libya, Tories and Lib Dems. Be honest with the public and say that just like before it’s really all about oil!
If you want more information go to http//:www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investors/oil-producers-in-libya-face-political-conundrum/article1941836
If you want more information go to http//:www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investors/oil-producers-in-libya-face-political-conundrum/article1941836
I have often wondered if Blair had said that we were invading Iraq to ensure we didn’t all end up living in unheated caves with home-made candles for light just how many would have been out demonstrating against the invasion.
Of course it’s all about oil and in a sense thank God for that or else we would have been watching terrible retribution being meted out by Mad-Dog.
The Arab League knows the game is up for a lot of their corrupt regimes and their buying brownie-points with the West by offering assistance – they hate Gadafi anyway as he was a revolutionary who deposed one of their own.
But, for whatever the reason, Cameron and Sarkozy have hopefully done something for humanity and let’s hope action is taken in all those other countries with no oil where people are slaughtered day and daily with no intervention.
Liberal International British Group has a forum on 4 April on the revolutions in North Africa and the prospects for those countries’ political futures, with speakers including Sonia Bessamra, an expert on Tunisian politics, Robert Woodthorpe-Browne, the Liberal International bureau member who is coordinating support for liberals in North Africa, and former LI president Lord Alderdice.
Details at: http://www.libg.co.uk
Adrian, one of the perennial political errors is the notion that because one cannot help everyone, it is alright to help no one. Of course distinguishing Bengazi from Bahrain is partly pragmatism not principle. Europe has got itself into the position of being written off by the Arab street as America’s poodles, and of not giving a shit for anything except our narrow self-interests and our proclamations about democracy and human rights being nothing but hot air and hypocracy.. This is very dangerous as we are probably still only in the early stage of a wave of revolutionary change right across the Middle East. This effects our vital economic interests enormously as everyone knows. Britain and France, working together have taken a lead over Libya, with the US vacillating and we have good chances of toppling Gedaffi. It has provided an opportunity to transform our position vis a vis the Arab street and could represent a big step forward for the credibility of an independent European voice in world affairs. Germany’s caution is because of the wider implications of this, especially for the Gulf, and they are understandable, but I think in this Merkel is mistaken and Cameron and Sarkozy have got it right.. On balance, the prize available from acting, from building up Franco-British military and diplomatic co-operation, is far greater than the risk of a messy end and hostages to fortune. If we succeed the Germans and others will be more likely to come in with us in the future. The PM deserves our support in his initiative. The Party, especially pro-Europeans should be behind this much more clearly than we have been hitherto. The emerging Franco-British axis is the best news for pro-Europeans here for a long time. It is a pity LDs have played virtually no part in it. We will need to get behnd it if we wish to maintain any distance between our approach to Europe and the Conservative mainstream. It is no exaggeration to say our future could depend upon it.
I can not understand why so many Lib Dems are supporting the no fly zone. We were happy to deals with Libya until recently and are supporting the Saudi’s and other in the Middle East. We are just jumping on an easy band waggon. We have lost the moral high ground that we gained over Iraq – France Britain etc are clearly supporting regime change – are we so sure that the alternative is so much better. Are the rebels members of Liberal International?
“We have lost the moral high ground that we gained over Iraq – France Britain etc are clearly supporting regime change – are we so sure that the alternative is so much better. Are the rebels members of Liberal International?”
Well said, John Faulkner. Isn’t it strange how this website seems to want to talk about everything other than Libya right now?
Commenting reminder: Please remember to respect our moderation policy which basically asks people to be polite, be on topic and be honest (ie don’t pretend to be more than one person or to be someone you are not).
As you can see from other comments published on the site, wide-ranging and robust debate is fine (including comments critical of the party or the site). However, we do ask for little bit of civility – and the chances are you’ll find that makes your points a little more effective at persuading others anyway!
We have the policy about off-topic comments so that people can choose to take part in the discussions which interest them, rather than finding the same discussions shoe-horned into threads on posts on a wide range of other topics.
If there’s a topic that is relevant to our site and hasn’t been covered in a post then raising it in a thread is fine. However, what goes too far – for example – is raising the same topic in several threads in quick succession.
More details are at https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy which you can also get to via the reminder link which always appears next to the box for posting a new comment.
John Faulkner & Fiona,
Do you think governments should stand by and let a civil war happen when one side has made clear that it will target civilians?
If so, could you explain how this is more moral than taking steps to prevent this scenario?
It’s a mystery why Liberal Democrats have been so quiet while watching ordinary people risk their lives for liberalism. Tunisia…Egypt…now Iraq and Yemen. Is it because the rules of the coalition are such that Hague is the main man and its not possible for Nick to say anything that smacks of fresh thinking or new ideas, in case its out of line? Only afterwards, mentioning words of support for initiatives already taken.
It was David Owen who went into the Sunday Times two weeks ago that first raised the idea of a no fly zone. This was rubbished, of course, but it was an idea, Cameron the following day seized on it, as he had to be seen to be saying and doing something. It then gathered momentum. The press have now forgotten the former SDP leader and heap all the credit on Cameron (new spin doctor making his mark by hitting the ground running, eh?)
Liberal International are meeting on April 4th. Sadly, the voice of liberalism has been muted…and late.
I am amazed by the cynicism shown here by some of the commenters – we’re creating the space for individual citizens to overthrow a tyrant and to establish for themselves a working democracy in their country; we’re standing up for peoples rights to express a view, to escape totalitarianism, and to live without fear or secret police and violence; it’s completely and entirely noble.
How does it differ from Iraq? Well for a start it’s not an invasion, there are no occupying forces on the ground; we’re acting in the interest of the citizens of the country where the intervention is made, not our own; we’re engaging only military targets, not bombing civilian areas; and we have broad international agreement and consensus, within the bounds of internationally law, not acting unilaterally.
With Iraq we were lied to; we didn’t want it, and the country on the receiving end didn’t want it either. With Libya we, along with the citizens being murdered by their own government have been ahead of the international institutions in demanding action.
@Andrew Tennant
Is your opening paragraph a quote from one of Tony Blair’s speeches on Iraq? If not, it could be.
g and Andrew Tennant
I’m not convinced by the “moral” arguments. I still think Sarkozy and Cameron are motivated by the fact that Libya, and potentially hundreds of thousands of refugees, are right on Europe’s doorstep. For heaven’s sake, Cameron said exactly that to the Scottish Tories.
It’s OK, is it, for the party to support regime change but only in Libya, and possibly anywhere else Cameron feels disposed to get involved in, yet it was wrong to want to topple Saddam Hussein, who wrote the book on using WMD against his own citizens.
As for Andrew Tennant’s arguments – so what happens when forces are needed on the ground? It’s inevitable that they will be. Remember Afghanistan? Do we turn tail at that point and say “Oh no, that wasn’t part of the plan. You’re on your own now!” What happens when civilians get hurt? Because it would be a miracle if air strikes took place with not a single mistake and no civilian casualties whatsoever.
Broad international agreement, yes – but it wasn’t unanimous, was it. But this is different, so we’ll ignore that shall we? And of course your assertion that the coalition in Iraq acted illegally is simply your opinion, not a fact – inconvenient though that might still be to Nick Clegg, whose gaffe in the House of Commons has not been repeated. As for “unilateral” action in Iraq, in fact there were about 20 countries involved in the coalition. How many countries are involved in this coalition?
Oh well, I guess it’s tough for Nick Clegg. Go along with it, or take the party out of the coalition, lose your job and face another election.
Now that really would be unthinkable.
It’s about Oil again so those deluded that this is a humanitarian intervention had best wake up.
BP alone have many, many Billions invested in Oil there and the giant U.S. Oil corporations have far more.
It’s why we didn’t have a No Fly Zone in Egypt and don’t have one in Bahrain or Yemen.
This very day eight years ago the Iraq War began.
History is repeating itself.
@John Basil
It’s odd, I don’t recall the Egyptian government using military force and aerial bombardment against their own citizens; nor, when I think about it, Mubarak saying he would mercilessly slaughter all those voicing opposition to him.
To compare the transitions that occurred before, and the actions of the relevant presidents, with those of Libya and Gaddafi, is not just misleading, it’s inexplicably idiotic.
“I am amazed by the cynicism shown here by some of the commenters – we’re creating the space for individual citizens to overthrow a tyrant and to establish for themselves a working democracy in their country; we’re standing up for peoples rights to express a view, to escape totalitarianism, and to live without fear or secret police and violence; it’s completely and entirely noble.”
That seems to suggest that we should be firning missiles at every state that is not a liberal democracy. And the violence that it creates is ok.
“It’s odd, I don’t recall the Egyptian government using military force and aerial bombardment against their own citizens”
Because you don’t recall it clearly enough.
Mubarak mobilised his air force to overfly and threaten the protesters in Tahrir Square and other places early on and just because it was his secret police and not the military doing the violence doesn’t mean those approx. 400 dead Egyptian protesters are any less dead. Nor does it make the appaling violence and deaths in Yemen now occuring, but getting almost no News coverage, any less real.
This is the same NeoConservative lunacy masquerading as humanitarian concern we are all familiar with.
Libya’s neighbours have every right and reason to deal with this.
The U.S. and U.K. hiding behind the U.N. don’t, nor can we afford this muscular NeoCon posturing with the ongoing Afghan quagmire still grinding on after 10 years.
To keep repeating the same action expecting a different result isn’t just idiotic it’s the definition of insanity.
..and as the sorry beast breathed it’s last desperate breath, the vet was called in to finally put the Liberal’s moral high horse out of it’s misery.
People should remember that when a country goes to war it is the military who dictate the agenda not the politicians.
One further thought: if Manchester and Liverpool were in a state of rebellion do you think that the government of this country would sit back and do nothing? Of course they wouldn’t. They would use the army to regain the territory, just like Gadhafi. I don’t want to see innocent people harmed either, but once you get involved in war the first casualty is the truth.
@ John Basil.
I am glad that you agree with my earlier post above that it is really all about oil. This is the underlying motive of the West for going into Libya. It is sickening to see it dressed up as humanitarian concern when that clearly does not extend to protecting the people in non-oil producing countries from their despots.
Strange we only intervene when theres oil.
DR Congo where 10’s of thousands are being killed every month in a civil war.
Burma where the government routinely kills it’s population
.. Darfur in Sudan, as others have mentioned …
These are in a far far worse predicament then Libya, yet all we here is silence ….
@g Just look at the history on the above where governments have made it clear that they are targetting their own civilians
Yes, well Clegg would say that, wouldn’t he? Some may call it Liberal intervention, I call it Neo-Imperialism. The LibDems are now fully paid up members of the Neo-Imperialist club. You see, when you are a member of this club, you decide what is international law. You decide what military actions are legal, or not. You are also allowed to make your national interests paramount amongst others. And that is what this attack on Libya is, naked self interest.
.. and now the Arab league is saying this is unjustified …
Great job
And when the cloak of ‘humanitarian crisis’ is used to justify an attack on Iran, I’m sure Clegg will be there to tell us that too is legal.
this to me seems very similar to Iraq, for years we had UN resolutions, weapon checks etc. against Sadam which he failed to uphold as per the resolutions set by the UN, At least with Saddam they had a case as he had declared war and invaded another country, ultimately it went too far and regime change was pushed as the aim of the conflict.
i see little difference between the early days in Iraq and what is happening now in Libiya similar type of dictator Gadaffi and Saddam Hussain are not really very different in their willingness to kill people from the countries they run. We have UN resolutions being flaunted claiming hes stopped attacking his own country men whilst continuing regardless. As regards the use of groundtroops in Libiya haven’t we already gone ahead with that or does the SAS patrol caught in Libiya on the ground not count? is that in breach of the UN resolutions thus making the actions of this governtment as “illegal” as the Labour government before. I personally dont have a problem with the actions taken in Libiya but i didnt really have a problem with the overthrowing of Saddam. I just find it hard to accept that this is justified whilst claiming Iraq was “illegal” it does just seem to me as brazen hypocracy in my opinion they are all very similar, we are protecting our access to oil.
@George Kendall
How do you feel about your “Just War” now that the Arab leagues has come out against bombings.
“let’s kill some people, that are killing people – too show that killing people is wrong” – There is some great logic in that
Iraq had more legitimacy as there was a vote in parliament prior to military action. Other than that, Libya seems even less thought out without any understanding of how the war might be won and how the peace will be maintained if it is won, etc. Oh, and our government lied to us – they said it was going to be a no-fly zone – how does blowing up tanks and hurling over 100 cruise missiles constitute a no-fly zone exactly? The arab league know they’ve been lied to and have withdrawn support within 24hrs, yet the British press seem slow to pick up on this obvious fact.
Those hundreds of cruise missles looked suspiciously similar to the ones fired at Iraq though no doubt the NeoCons, sorry ‘muscular liberals’, can explain the subtle differences to the bereaved families of the innocent civiliains caught in the crossfire. And please explain it it using the exact same soundbites Tony Blair was so fond of just to add to the grim irony to the situation.
I look forward to tomorrows statement in the commons to see just how staunch Nick Clegg’s support of this conflict is, because it’s all over the News, isn’t going away anytime soon and will be impossible to ignore.
Just to add to Mr Clegg’s woes it seems a Tory MP is far more in tune with his Lib Dem delegates than he is as family GP and Tory MP Sarah Woollaston today said Cameron and Lansley’s reforms ‘risked destroying the NHS.’ If only Nick agreed with her.
Libya is the proof positive that those who think ‘things can only get better’ are living in a dreamworld.
They can get far, far worse. And with Cameron in charge of an eternally compliant Clegg, they will.
P.S. Nick Clegg needs to have a look at the News and media around the world as they certainly seem to think it’s a War with even the BBC calling it that.
Why are our Lib Dem MPs so blind on this. I have been a member of the Liberals and Liberal Democratts since 1972 and I am disturbed that none of them seem to be speaking up against this policy on Libya. Will any of our MPs stand up and be counted?
Steve: A no fly zone only works if the other side cant see you coming – it takes a load of rockets to dispense with all the radar stations and the bits that might strike back. That turns the odds a bit, now this is done, things should be a little easier.
SAS have been in there a while, they have tracker devices, often disguised to look like an orange, or a brick, and they can be put into gutters or lobbed across a fence and a rocket homes in on this device with pin point accuracy, it could go down a chimney if need be.
But we had a no-fly zone in Iraq before the invasion FOR 12 YEARS! Who can afford another long drawn out saga?
By some strange coincidence, as has been mentioned above, it was exactly eight years to the day to the anniversary of the Blair war on Iraq that a British submarine fired a Tomahawk missile or two into Libya.
…but what now? Where does it go from here?
@Philip Young
How does attacking tanks secure a no-fly zone? – they pose no threat to coalition aircraft in the ‘no-fly’ zone and those specific attacks (for which therre is unamiguous evidence) are therefore very clearly NOT related to securing a ‘no-fly’ zone. It is because of such attacks that the arab league have withdrawn their support and it is because of such attacks that it is very clear that our government has lied to us as well.
“SAS have been in there a while”
1. How do you know what they’ve been doing?
2. How is their presence legal? For a party that bleats on about the legality of Iraq (which is rather missing the point of why our government was wrong at the time – the substantive point is that they were wrong because they misled the electorate and parliament – the ‘legality’ of Iraq is still a matter of dispute anyway). Or is it OK for the SAS to operate outside of international law, because they’re special???
The Arab League have not withdawn their support, Steve, c’mon, get the basic facts rights.
Tanks are a threat to the civilian population, they have been firing at civilians in their homes, even a chemist shop, ambulances have been shot at and hospitals hit – so in the terms of the reslolution where is says any force that protects the civilian population, knocking out a few tanks is justified.
SAS are helping to define targets, the French special forces are also doing a similar job. Quite right too – anything that limits errors is a good thing, surely. Without intelligence on the ground those who pull the trigger are just relying on aerial photographs and satellite images. Do the job properly, ot not at all, surely, ought to apply here.
However, the question remains – where does it go from here? What now?
The Lib dems in government have sanctioned war and regime change very easily. I have stated in another thread that I believe that if you had been in a coalition you would have voted for the war in Iraq. What next for Libya? Do you care? The blood of any civilian deaths will be on your hands as it is on those who supported the Iraq war. How many do you consider expendable? Just a point but it is not easy to find this thread considering the magnitude of what is going on. Why is that?
Liam Fox has been caught talking about the possibility of killing Gaddafi with an air strike.
Apart from sanctioning assasination this makes the U.N. resolution a lie since the one thing it was not supposed to be about was regime change.
So now we are in a bloody conflict/civil war with the minority eastern tribal rebels against the western Gaddafi forces and, as everyone will be forced to admit today, not the slightest idea what to do after raining down cruise missiles and airstrikes.
Yet today in the commons will be a parade of self congratulations and a big majority support for getting embroiled in another middle eastern conflict with no end in sight.
It’s like Iraq and Afganistan never happened.
It’s also worth pointing out that Liam Fox says he “doesn’t plan to have troops on the ground”.
Not the same thing as ruling them out you’ll notice. They didn’t plan VAT rises either.
This will do for Lib Dems on foreign policy what the NHS reforms will do on domestic policy.
And you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Can I just ask where the money is coming from. We are ‘broke’ no money left. The coalition and posters on here have been drumming this into us we have to cut cut cut public services police benefits for the poor etc and seemingly could no longer afford our armed forces! What irony that is. I have been reading comments on the BBC and online newspapers overwhelmingly even in the Daily Mail people are angry and feel they have been lied to over the deficit let alone angry on the insanity of this war. Dave’s mates the arms dealers wil be happy thinking of all that wealth they will have after rearming Libya and replacing those used missiles. They must be salivating.
@ John Basil
‘Liam Fox has been caught talking about the possibility of killing Gaddafi with an air strike.
Apart from sanctioning assasination this makes the U.N. resolution a lie since the one thing it was not supposed to be about was regime change.’
Exactly, if they had wanted to assassinate, they should have invited Gaddaffi to the royal wedding along with all the other despots and got him then! Would have saved a fortune. Now isn’t that event going to be a nightmare for the security of all of us.
Anne….calm down dear. There are no civilisan casualties, so why get so upset. Dont be a hostage to the Gadafi propaganda machine. Yes, there might have been casualties, Libya Military that work around radar stations and anti-aircract missile bases for sure, but the French say they have no knowledge of civilian casualties, nor has the UK, so why believe everything Gadafi has to say…who by the way has declared at least two cease-fires so far, but the tracer-fire in the air last night was proof he is not exactly doing what he says…
To change the topic for a second, why is this now buried under “older posts” why there are several threads on voting reforms… it rather unerlines what John Faulkner was saying earlier: Why are Liberal Democrats so passive, so quiet, on what is going on in North Africa?
@Phillip Young
Don’t be a hostage to our very own propoganda machines. Warfare from 40,000 feet means mistakes WILL happen.
Gadaffi is no fool and is well aware of the propoganda value in all of this. Why else has he anti-aircraft batterys in densley populated areas – next to schools and hospitals. He has also had civilians acting as a shield in his compound and these sites, so you assertion that there are no civilian casualties is unknown.
As to your point regarding tracer fire – Would you just sit there and wait to be bombed?
@ Philip Young
Anne….calm down dear. There are no civilisan casualties, so why get so upset.
First do not be so patronising ‘dear’! Second, how do you know there are no civilian casualties or that there will not be any? They tried to gloss over the casualties in Iraq as well. We should all be ‘upset’ and that word does not even describe what I and many are feeling. Many of the soldiers killed were young conscripts apparently. It is OK for you and I to sit at our keyboards while bombs are falling a long way away. The coalition according to a growing number of countries has exceeded its remit. Who are the ‘rebels’? Will they be any better, has a ‘puppet’ already been lined up? What are the rebels going to do? Will they be allowed to kill Gaddafi, his sons, family and supporters because they are the bad guys? I doubt we will answer the appeal for help from their innocent civilians. Where will it end? Tell me. To think that we are there to ‘protect innocent civilians’ is naive, it is only in oil rich countries we intervene. We prop up these despots when it suits and sell them their weapons.
On your other point, I believe that this thread has been deliberately ‘buried’. Too uncomfortable. Unable to access anything on ‘most read’ for instance.
Three questions:
Anne says there have been civilian casualties, full stop. How did she find that out to be so certain?
Second: Fewer civilians who are innocent will die as a result of the actions of the last few days then if nothing was done, and Gadaffi was allowed to carry on using his planes and rockets against his own people.
Finally, how come the Saturday Caption competition gets five respondents, and this gets 50, yet this topic is burried in the “older posts” bottom drawer – why, when this is the only topic currently generating any interest that relates to what is in the newspapers and on tonight’s news bulletins? Odd or what.
Ive travelled all round Libya – recently – and Im delighted for the ordinary civilians with what is happening. Unlike Egypt, rockers and planes were being levelled against them, and as an earlier comment said (and summed it up better), there is now a real chance of ending years of totalatarian communism. Yes, it could be replaced with a Taliban fascist state, but everyone in Libya will have seen the massive enthusiasm for a thing called voting that went on next door in Egypt at the weekend, where people lined up for hours to get to a ballot paper, and they might like to try the experience for themselves. Now, they have a hope – at the 11th hour, the cavalry have finally come over the hill just when it looked like their brave efforts were going to end in murderous retaliation.
With over a hundred cruise missles fired and wave after wave of bombing I think it’s a mathematicaly certainty that there have been civilian casualties.
Would the rebels have been attacked by Gaddafi’s airforce and tanks without this intervention ?
Yes, but that capability was knocked out in the first day yet we are still bombing Libya with no sign of stopping.
And they are rebels. If you have travelled all over Libya you will know this isn’t like Egypt because Gaddafi still has strong support in the West while the Eastern tribal rebels are a minority.
This is a civil war and the UK and US are pretty obviously engaged in regime change again.
There is no endgame and this is an open ended commitment with Cameron refusing to rule out troops on the grounf in the commons today. Instead he used semantics to rule out an “occupying force” whatever he chooses that to mean.
“how come the Saturday Caption competition gets five respondents, and this gets 50, yet this topic is burried in the “older posts” bottom drawer – why, when this is the only topic currently generating any interest that relates to what is in the newspapers and on tonight’s news bulletins? Odd or what.”
Disturbing I would call it. As is the Most Read feature suddenly being disabled.
This isn’t going away and can’t be ignored. Trying to do so would be a huge mistake.
@ Philip Young
Anne says there have been civilian casualties, full stop. How did she find that out to be so certain?
Can’t find where I said that! I said ‘ The blood of any civilian deaths will be on your hands as it is on those who supported the Iraq war.’ I have no proof of casualties but on the other hand you have no proof that there are not. I take Gadaffi’s propaganda with the same pinch of salt as this UN coalition and UK politicians. We need an independent in there. However, I find it hard to believe that no civilian has not or will not be killed or maimed. .
Come on Voice what are you up to? Not afraid of the debate are you or has there been some interference?
Just thought I’d mention that when I remarked on the fact that this website appeared to want to talk about anything but Libya (5.14 pm, 19 March), I was sharply reminded of the site’s moderation policy.
Very liberal!
Fiona: The reminder was not directed at yourself, but at other people who had, for example, posted a personal insult in the thread and were therefore moderated.
Really? I must have missed that.
While you’re here, perhaps you could respond to the posts (not just mine) lamenting the absence of any analysis or recent updates about what is happening in Libya. It does look as though you’re avoiding the issue, and that doesn’t look good.
I just noticed 8.45 tonight – well done, finally, three days later!
BBC News; “Libya is not Iraq, says Deputy PM”
Glad to see that Nick Clegg has such an in depth knowledge of geography
Glad to see that Nick is sticking to his game plan, and describing the obvious fact that whilst Libya is not Iraq – they do have something in common. (And no, im not talking about both leaders having a son that copied work to pass his PhD thesis)
And I bet the EU are happy that they didn’t give him his £4billion payment request, to help him fight illegal immigration problems in Libya back in October/November 2010??????