Ok so the UK/France were more than willing to go into Libya all guns blazing....... why not Syria?
Or is it because Syria have a Military Force that is a Force to be reckoned with not forgetting a Nuclear Program.
If we are led to believe the media, the regime in Syria is on par with Gaddafi.....even fear of the Syrian forces cleansing door-to-door of all men over 12.
do they have oil, if not then am out
yeah i forgot about the oil!
I don't think it's as simple as there being no oil. I think the West/NATO probably hoped that they could set an example with Gaddafi hoping that any other potential "crackdowns" would think twice. Now Syria is kicking off I think the main players in Libya are firstly looking at the bank balance and secondly, like the US, don't want to be seen to be getting involved with "Muslim" countries (as there is enough criticism and backlash from Iraq and Afghanistan). Already Gaddafi calls what is happening to him to be a "Crusade" by the West. Syria is clearly backed up by Iran, who is also backed up by Russia. With those odds, who wouldn't be cautious? In a way it is the rhetoric that the extreme Islamists have come out with about the West and their interfering ways and so on that is probably now meaning that they meet their doom at the hands of their own people. But isn't that always the way in the Middle East? Peoples Front of Judea anyone?
We (the UK) don't get a huge amount of oil from Libya IIRC. The French do though. For the UK, I think it was more of an opportunity to get Gadaffi who we have a fair amount of history with (Lockerbie, PIRA) in a "paybacks a bitch" scenario.
just one more step towards the WW3 that we're after.
Yes, obviously it's all our fault.
If the West is so evil how come I spent a chunk of my youth standing on a Bosnian hillside trying to keep the Serbs from lynching the Muslim population?
Every one of these countries is different. 90% of the Libyan population lives on a strip of land along the Med, not difficult to impose a no-fly zone++.
Oh and pretty much every Arab government is sick of Gadaffi and happy to see the back of him.....
Oh and pretty much every Arab government is sick of Gadaffi and happy to see the back of him.....
That's because Gadaffi took a bigger percentage of oil profits for the country and spent it on education, health etc, he set a bad example for the others.
Saudi has a far worse record of persecuting its citizens and the rulers take a far bigger percentage of oil revenue. FFS! they even rolled tanks into Bahrain to help destroy the democracy protests.
That's because Gadaffi took a bigger percentage of oil profits for the country and spent it on education, health etc, he set a bad example for the others.Saudi has a far worse record of persecuting its citizens and the rulers take a far bigger percentage of oil revenue. FFS! they even rolled tanks into Bahrain to help destroy the democracy protests.
Thats a classic piece of whataboutery, you should write for the Guardian. Yep, they're all pretty much run by scumbags. Honorable exception being the Moroccan King who is moving towards a European style constitutional monarchy.
Not sure what you are criticising there tbh ...none of them are western democracies but the point is we will turn a blind eye to pro western ones however poorly they treat their citizens - see Saudi for example
Yep, Gadaffi deserves all he gets. I'm glad he's not fleeing as it means that soon we'll be rid of him for good.
I think, after Iraq, its the fear of what regime would be established in its wake. As has been pointed out, the Syrian population is very pro-Iranian. I think just about everyone could do without another regime in the middle east leaning towards a regime hell-bent on attaining nuclear arms, and which seems to ratchet up the Islam-o-nutter anti-western retoric by the week
Choose your battles wisely
Copied from a post of mine on an earlier thread:
We aren't intervening in Syria because we can't do it:
Legally - As Z11 says, there is no way a UNSCR would get through.
Politically - Syria is at the heart of the Arab world, physically and culturally, and has ties with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. It would set the middle east ablaze.
Militarily - Syria has a large and credible military. We haven't got the numbers. Even the Americans would struggle, given their current commitments. There would be heavy casualties on our side, and western democracies won't tolerate that for somebody else's fight.
So overall, it's realpolitik. All we can do is diplomacy, protest, sanction etc. Just because we can't intervene everywhere, does that mean we shouldn't intervene anywhere? Hypocrisy or doing what we can?
Hypocrisy or doing what we can?
100% hypocrisy
Why? Interventionism is out of fashion at the moment after Iraq and Afghanistan. In the late 90s, after Rwanda, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, it was all the rage. The wheel turns....
I don't have a garage full of wonderbikes because I can't afford them. Shouldn't I bike at all?
FFS! They are really pussy footing aren't they?
FFS please start culling the human population as they are parasites.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
