Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To enforce a no fly zone we would need planes (of which there are now very few) and, more importantly, a suitable base within range but free from interference - that's best provided by an aircraft carrier - which we have just dispensed with.


So no matter what we should do - we can't.


The current degree of instability is a very good reason for maintaing appropriate armed forces, ours have just been emasculated by the Treasury.

Weirdly I thought we normally lifted no fly zones when dictators are quelling insurrections.


The Iranian ships going through Suez* is first sign of exactly what the west fears, middle east governments doing what they want, rather than what they're paid to do. Imagine what they'll do when they're answerable to the people**.


Double edged sword that democracy malarkey isn't it!!


Interesting times ahead!!


*of which I personally have no issue

**probably try and improve the economy, a surfeit of young unemployed men is feeding this wave of jasmine after all.

Theoretically Cyprus could be used to impose a no-fly zone albeit with air to air refuelling, but the RAF has lost so much capability it would be difficult to sustain it over time.


More importantly, the days when the UK could politically impose its will in such as way are long, long gone and rightly so.


I suspect that any western led intervention would simply provide a rallying point for the Gadaffi regime and would be counter productive. An Arab led intervention would be better, but most of the neighbouring Arab countries have their own problems.


I fear the Libyans are on their own.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm neither in Benghazi, or being bombed/persecuted by my country's military. But I still don't see the need for British military intervention. Let them sort this out for themselves. And if your counter-argument, which you're more than entitled to make, is that we should be protecting our oil interests in Libya, then let me declare now that I think this country should be making the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and investigating new, more productive ways of harnessing renewable energy. If we do, then we'd have a lot less cause to be interferring and getting ourselves caught-up in the affairs of (often unstable) countries that possess the reserves of oil that the base infrastructure of the western world currently relies on.

If I had a counter-argumnet, it would be that, within reason, we should offer support to people fighting for democracy and human rights. In extremis, this might mean military support.


In ten years, Libya could be a fully functioning democracy, where human rights and the rule of law are enshrined and where the citizens drive around in electric cars and carry re-usable bags bearing the legend "Tripoli Says "La" To unwanted Bags

Interestingly, if this scheme comes off


http://www.desertec.org/en/organization/


then our energy interests will continue to be tied to North Africa. We are also connected, it seems, by an innate human desire for our rights to be respected.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
    • To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers.  A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.
    • You don’t think there are right-wing politicians fanning this with rhetoric? Really? 
    • No party is willing to tackle the "elephant in the room" which is the national debt. It is costing the country circa £100 Billion ANNUALLY to service that debt. That is more than the defence and education budgets. That debt burden has to be reduced which in reality means cost cuts. That means cutting back state pensions, index-linked pensions for civil servants and others such as police, NHS etc. It means cutting back on universal credit and cutting the number of people who are claiming benefits.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...