http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37356873" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The British PM got it wrong.
Surprise.
But how are they so quick to come to that conclusion over Libya but not Iraq?
Cameron and Libya
-
Kwacky
- Posts: 38617
- Joined: 21 Oct 2013, 21:52
- Your Bike: Brutale 800RR, 1000SX Ninja
- Location: Brum
- Has thanked: 4327 times
- Been thanked: 8368 times
-
D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: Cameron and Libya
Hindsight it always 20/20.
Cameron went with the intel he had available to him, not the intel he wished for...that is true of almost anything in international politics, and almost de rigeur in regard to the Middle East/North Africa. He and Sarkozy (spelling??) were authorized by the UN to take the action they did...and no more than that. To do so would have been in breach of the UN mandate pertaining to the problem.
They followed the law, in other words....granted, a law that was passed specifically for the purpose of removing Gaddafi, but laws are seldom conceived prior to an issue's existence....they are typically reactionary in nature.
The World is a better place without that numbnut Gaddafi in it.
Who's next on the list......?
Cameron went with the intel he had available to him, not the intel he wished for...that is true of almost anything in international politics, and almost de rigeur in regard to the Middle East/North Africa. He and Sarkozy (spelling??) were authorized by the UN to take the action they did...and no more than that. To do so would have been in breach of the UN mandate pertaining to the problem.
They followed the law, in other words....granted, a law that was passed specifically for the purpose of removing Gaddafi, but laws are seldom conceived prior to an issue's existence....they are typically reactionary in nature.
The World is a better place without that numbnut Gaddafi in it.
Who's next on the list......?
-
Blade
- Posts: 18772
- Joined: 14 Mar 2014, 18:43
- Your Bike: Kawasaki ZX10R
- Location: North West
- Has thanked: 3134 times
- Been thanked: 3767 times
Re: Cameron and Libya
Seems your dammed if you do dammed if you don't.
We went into Iraq full on with ground forces and it's a failed state.
We limited ourselves to targeted strikes in Libya and it's a failed state.
We didnt go into Syria at all and it's also a failed state.
Maybe these places were always going one way ????????
We went into Iraq full on with ground forces and it's a failed state.
We limited ourselves to targeted strikes in Libya and it's a failed state.
We didnt go into Syria at all and it's also a failed state.
Maybe these places were always going one way ????????
-
Kwacky
- Posts: 38617
- Joined: 21 Oct 2013, 21:52
- Your Bike: Brutale 800RR, 1000SX Ninja
- Location: Brum
- Has thanked: 4327 times
- Been thanked: 8368 times
Re: Cameron and Libya
I'm not sure Iraq was failing - I guess it depends on your viewpoint. Saddam was a Grade A tosser but there are plenty of those about. It was known at the time that he was keeping a lot of the nutters in check. He was also killing people for fun.
For me it shows that we shouldn't get involved in these conflicts, they're not our fights.
For me it shows that we shouldn't get involved in these conflicts, they're not our fights.
-
D41
- Posts: 12966
- Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 11:36
- Your Bike: Triumph Daytona 650.
- Has thanked: 4300 times
- Been thanked: 1132 times
Re: Cameron and Libya
Yep.....Saddam was a nut job...but at least our govts. 'sort-of' knew where they were with him, and in his own way he was a successful leader in what is at it's root a very tribal culture......all there is now is a bunch of unknowns, which doesn't exactly inspire stability in the region, or confidence from any parties with even a remote interest.
