What is the world coming to...

Forgive me if I've got this wrong.

But isn't this govn presently introducing HUGE austerity measures with cut backs being made left, right and centre? Local services and govn bodies being slashed. Public services being slashed. Fire & police being slashed. Massive changes in the health service which pretty much everyone is saying are the worst thing to happen to the NHS since its inception?

We are still engaged in operations in Afghanistan and do we still have any troops in Iraq? Can't recall.

And what do we do? We get involved in yet another war. Pretty much the one thing gauranteed to be a humongous drain on any countries finances. Apparently we have launched cruise missles on Libya. At a cost of 1million per missile. And the USA & the UK just launched 100 of them. And why? To get involved in another countries dispute that has nothing to do with us.

For centruries countries have had civil war and what right does an outside country have to get involved in another countries business? Yes, Gadaffi is a nutter who has dealt out attrocities on his own people, but he has done this for decades. The only reason we have jumped in now is because we have seen an opportunity to get rid of him. And Libya isn't the only country to have shot it's own people. Bahrain has done the same. But Bahrain does not have a ruler who the West does not want. Totally hypocritical. And what about the African nations who are ruled by dictators and have massacred dissidents? What about the African nations that went about a policy of genocide? Where was the west then?

And where will it end? If Gadaffi doesn't get ousted from power, and to achieve that now will be very difficult, what will that mean for the security of the world? Gaddafi will go back to funding terrorism. No doubt he will need to sell his oil but will he be willing to sell it to the west and if he does how much will he charge? What about the business deals we had, and were forging with Libya, that were in our countries interests? That's income and no doubt jobs lost for the UK?

I'm not saying that we should just stand by and watch while civil war breaks and Gadaffi slaughters those who rose up. But to get involved militarily I believe to be the wrong decision. And while I understand that politicians just saying words to Gaddfi is a pointless excercise but if people in a country decide to rise up and rebel and then get beaten, to me that is an internal affair of a country. We were happy to get both sides to initiate dialogue in the other countries in North Africa that recently had uprisings.

And I do understand that those countries didn't initiate a full scale assault on those who did uprise and I do get that negotiation probably wouldn't have worked with Gaddafi, but the actions we have now entered into can only lead to an escalation and a more unsafe world.

Politians. Don't you just love them...

This whole world is getting uglier by the day...The way people are treating each other is so sad...
I haven't seen or read enought o know what is going on in libia..I rmemeber the president talking on Friday about
the U.n. sanctioned no fly zone and what would happen if it was violated. It is hard for me to understand how that works.
At what point do you have to support the U.N. and the nations like ours that uphold it.
At what point can you sit back and let these people become brutalized again before you say that's it..enough...

I am so glad I am not in politics but at the same time I sure wish it would stop. Sure seems like there is no answer to these problems.
We don't seem to make it better just bigger...

You mentioned about the Muslims and the problems with that there. It was hard for me to answer that because we just don't have it here...
We tend to be a lot more violent and if you piss people off especially with religion then people get hurt..There have been a few groups that have tried a few stunts but they were shut up fairly quickly. But the way you were talking about how people act and then hide behind their religion to do it I don't get that either..

Chrissy wrote:

At what point do you have to support the U.N. and the nations like ours that uphold it.

At what point can you sit back and let these people become brutalized again before you say that's it..enough...

The United Nations is body of the worlds major countries. It isn't a seperate enterty which decides things and then countries have to abide by. I'm not totally sure which countries make up the United Nations but, bascially, they will vote and decide if a motion is passed or not. If it is passed then that gives a 'green light' for those countries to do whatever the resolution says they can do. If it's not passed then no action can be taken.

Just because a resolution is passed that does not mean countries IN the United Nations must take action. It is then up to each nation to decide if it wishes to take part. This time around China, Russia & Germany all abstained from the vote so they would not take part in any military actions. UK, France & the USA obviously voted in favour so they would, and are, willing to engage in operations.

One of the things that has helped the motion to be passed is that other Arab leaders & nations have supported the action against Gaddafi as he isn't very popular with them. But, in my view, when did not liking a nations leader become the basis for attacking the nation he governs? And it is a good point you make, when does it become acceptable to stop citizens becoming brutalised? Personally, as long as it stays within the countries borders then it is an internal affair and outside nations should not be permitted to attack it.

I find it interesting that the West will engage with military action against leaders and countries it does not particulary like, when it feels it has something to gain, but yet when China sent tanks into Tinanman(sp) Square, what did it do? When Mugabi decided on genocide within his country, what did the west do? When South Africa oppressed and tortured blacks for decades, what did the west do? And there's plenty more examples of the wests total and complete hypocrisy.

good point

All I know is that I'm scared...

I did some reading yesterday to try to understand this a little better. If what they say is true and good luck with that it was the U.S. offering support to Britain and France. By taking out his largest airbases we have basically grounded him. I was listening to the president speak on this and he kept repeating that in order for the peoples uprise to over throw Gahdfi then he had to have his military grounded. Since he would not respect the no fly zones and was basically going to bomb the hell out of these people we helped take those out. He then went on to remind us that we were offering support only and would not be involved in the ground battles with no troops being sent over. Our president is not a fan of getting involved where the military is concerned but he felt it was necessary to offer support......

The thing is, the resolution has said that 'any action is permitted other than a land invasion'. So the United Nation forces can attack his tanks/ convoys/ airfields/ radar stations/ military bases/ troops...anything other than actually send in troops, to give the rebellion the best chance to succeed.

I don't see how that is any of our business? It was the rebels choice to rise up. If they get beaten, so be it.

I'm sure us English would have been in uproar if Libya sent troops to help the IRA! We were an occupying force and we killed Irish civilians. And I know I'm stretching the analogy a bit here, cos it wasn't anything like on the scale Gaddafi has done, but the principal is the same. And he did arm the IRA supplying explosives and weapons but that's one of the reasons the west held out the olive branch, to stop him funding terrorists and blowing up planes.

What the hell is going to do if/when he stays in power? THAT's my main worry. All we have done is annoy a rattle snake. The saying 'let sleeping dogs lie' comes to mind.

Why does the west constantly feel it has the right to intervene in other countries affairs?

I like that line about the rattlesnake.....good points....

War doesn't determine who is right only who is left......

Chrissy wrote:

War doesn't determine who is right only who is left......

No, actually war can be right. The 1st Iraq war. Totally justified. WWII, totally justified. If you invade another country, without provication, then you are asking for trouble.

If your war is based on idealogy or regieme change then you are on shaky ground. And if it's based on protecting civilians then you need to apply the same rules TO ALL COUNTIRES.

And it's that last point that hasn't been done and it's that last point that pisses me off about the west when we do, do it. We are not the World Police.

And how we can afford to go engage in another war when thousands of jobs are being lost because we can't afford them. Then how can we afford to go to war?

I sure wish things would change..Too many people dying...To much anger and hurt in the world and yes not enough jobs.....
Wonder what would happen if everyone took care of themselves only...

I'm just wondering if anyone else has an opnion on this other than us two!!!!

Forumees? Hello!!! Anyone else out there!!!???!!!

RFFB wrote:

I'm just wondering if anyone else has an opnion on this other than us two!!!!

Forumees? Hello!!! Anyone else out there!!!???!!!

I'm just enjoying your comments.

I'm scared that this is going to escalate into something more serious. I agree something needs to be done, I'm just wondering if this is the right thing (or if it's all about oil again)...

Attempts have been made to democratize the Middle East for generations, and the United States will always be the cornerstone of Democracy; thus, it will always step up to help those fighting for independence. The U.S. has also tried to get a foothold in Africa for generations ( ever since - is it {James} Monrovia?) This guy , Gadhaffi, has lost his marbles, and is in command of the army, unfortunately. He'll most likely have to be assissinated before reasoning how his countrymen have effected his departure.

Fret, not trying to stir thing up, but America only seems to step up when it has something to gain. Where was America when China crushed it's rebellion? Even in Vietnam America only really got involved because it didn't want Communism to spread. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour to bring the USA into the WWII and, an often overlooked fact, for some loony reason it was Hitler who then declared war on the USA, so giving the Roosevelt the excuse/reason to join the fight in Europe. America didn't just decide to jump in and help as is often how it is presented.

Roosevelt had tried to get congress to agree to join the war but had failed as the US politians viewed it as a 'European affair', nothing to do with the USA. Yes, the USA helped with supplying some weapons and gave convey escourt support to the merchant ships heading to the UK from the USA but there was no desire to get fully involved. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA it is very probable that the US would not have got involved in Europe.

The west has got itself into one big mess. We seem to think because this how we live that everyone wants what we have. Personally, I'm not that sure.

One of the things I have learned in meeting people from across the sea is that the things I have known my whole life to be true are not necessary so. its very hard to accept new ideas when I have only known things one way all of my 41 years...I'm sure its the same if the tables were turned but since our nation tends to move at a fast pace it shows...Walking with Adam in England I said something that really seems to be coming up. We all think the same just Americans do all of the things the English think about doing. I am not saying that is always a good thing and when I said it it was in response to Adam saying he wished for a machine gun to just rid the area of certain people..In the U. S. that is an option albeit a very bad one lol!!!!!

Be patient with me with new ideas and in showing that yes there is a better way to build a mouse trap. I'll try to listen....

Now I sit in a position which is odd..I am on the fence...i can see exactly what Fret is saying because it is what I know. I can also see Adam's point although it is usually never something I have thought of before... But it is in an interesting position to be in. We have a president that seems to be trying to sit on that fence as well. I'm not saying that is good or bad because I just don't know enough about his politics to have that argument.

I still think the best way to handle this is to just pray it all ends soon...
and learn to handle each other the way we seem to do here..with patience and kindness and always good intentions....

Well it's started.

Muslims are protesting against the countries involved in this. Just the excuse they need to bring more of their hate speechs and radical ideals to the fore. And no doubt bring more converts to their cause and more trouble for all the countries involved. The USA, UK & France aren't exactly on their 'friends' list as it is.

And we have given them more propaganda material.

One thing I did also want to metion is that Gaddaffi DOES have the support of a large section of the Libyan citizens. Why doesn't their voice matter?

RFFB wrote:

Fret, not trying to stir thing up, but America only seems to step up when it has something to gain. Where was America when China crushed it's rebellion? Even in Vietnam America only really got involved because it didn't want Communism to spread. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour to bring the USA into the WWII and, an often overlooked fact, for some loony reason it was Hitler who then declared war on the USA, so giving the Roosevelt the excuse/reason to join the fight in Europe. America didn't just decide to jump in and help as is often how it is presented.

Roosevelt had tried to get congress to agree to join the war but had failed as the US politians viewed it as a 'European affair', nothing to do with the USA. Yes, the USA helped with supplying some weapons and gave convey escourt support to the merchant ships heading to the UK from the USA but there was no desire to get fully involved. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA it is very probable that the US would not have got involved in Europe.

The west has got itself into one big mess. We seem to think because this how we live that everyone wants what we have. Personally, I'm not that sure.

I don't think you've allowed room for your last point to be debated, but, I appreciate your points, nonetheless. I've been very busy, and unable to respond properly in time, though, I would like to raise one or two items for thought. Those were U.S. supply ships carrying U.S. produced supplies/ goods, and the convoys soaked German U boats on the way. The spread of the Japanese Empire and Naziism weighed heavily on everyone's mind for good reason. The U.S. had the capacity in experience, manpower, industry, materials, and research unlike any other country not under Communist Japanese or Nazi control, and the timing of involvement with either incursion was extremely critical. This point is nowhere more apparent than when one realizes the presence of the U.S. at the end of both campaigns was not mere coincidence, and if the U.S. hadn't become involved Europe would likely have become Hitler's Arian Friday Night. Korea?! I don't even remember anything about the Korean involvement. The involvement in Vietnam was horrible, though you're correct to mention that "America only really got involved because it didn't want Communism to spread," and we lost bigtime where there were was nothing to gain.

I've become entirely jaded over the gripe that the "U.S. is only in it for gain," and I do understand the bittersweet "profit of war," but, I still don't know anything. Would someone please point out where the U.S. has gained anything or would gain anything out of Iraq or Afghanistan? To suggest that the U.S. and/or NATO is interested in profiteering while in Libya is utterly moot. IMHO

very good points there...

Frethead wrote:

RFFB wrote:

Fret, not trying to stir thing up, but America only seems to step up when it has something to gain. Where was America when China crushed it's rebellion? Even in Vietnam America only really got involved because it didn't want Communism to spread. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour to bring the USA into the WWII and, an often overlooked fact, for some loony reason it was Hitler who then declared war on the USA, so giving the Roosevelt the excuse/reason to join the fight in Europe. America didn't just decide to jump in and help as is often how it is presented.

Roosevelt had tried to get congress to agree to join the war but had failed as the US politians viewed it as a 'European affair', nothing to do with the USA. Yes, the USA helped with supplying some weapons and gave convey escourt support to the merchant ships heading to the UK from the USA but there was no desire to get fully involved. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA it is very probable that the US would not have got involved in Europe.

The west has got itself into one big mess. We seem to think because this how we live that everyone wants what we have. Personally, I'm not that sure.

I don't think you've allowed room for your last point to be debated, but, I appreciate your points, nonetheless. I've been very busy, and unable to respond properly in time, though, I would like to raise one or two items for thought. Those were U.S. supply ships carrying U.S. produced supplies/ goods, and the convoys soaked German U boats on the way. The spread of the Japanese Empire and Naziism weighed heavily on everyone's mind for good reason. The U.S. had the capacity in experience, manpower, industry, materials, and research unlike any other country not under Communist Japanese or Nazi control, and the timing of involvement with either incursion was extremely critical. This point is nowhere more apparent than when one realizes the presence of the U.S. at the end of both campaigns was not mere coincidence, and if the U.S. hadn't become involved Europe would likely have become Hitler's Arian Friday Night. Korea?! I don't even remember anything about the Korean involvement. The involvement in Vietnam was horrible, though you're correct to mention that "America only really got involved because it didn't want Communism to spread," and we lost bigtime where there were was nothing to gain.

I've become entirely jaded over the gripe that the "U.S. is only in it for gain," and I do understand the bittersweet "profit of war," but, I still don't know anything. Would someone please point out where the U.S. has gained anything or would gain anything out of Iraq or Afghanistan? To suggest that the U.S. and/or NATO is interested in profiteering while in Libya is utterly moot. IMHO

Yes, you are right when you say Europe would likely have become Hitlers & Germany, but it is fact that the USA did not join out of any desire to stop Hitler. Roosevelt wanted to join the fight but could not get backing from congress. It was only when Hitler, in one of his mad decisions, declared war on the USA they Roosevelt no longer needed the backing of congress and could get involved in Europe. Americas involvement was certainly decisive as the UK could not have done anything like D-Day on it's own. But is fact that without Hitlers declaration of war the USA would have joined when they did and it is debatable if they would have come to Europe's aid if Hitler hadn't declared war. Personally, I think it would have been unlikely that the USA would have let the UK fall into German hands and they would have come in eventually, but the moment of their joining the war in Europe was not decided by the USA.

Americas 'gain' in Vietnam was that the politians believed that if Vietnam fell and became a Communist country that it would create a 'domino' effect and other Asian countries would follow suit. This was at a time when Communist paranoia was at it's height in the USA and they simply did not wish other countries to fall also.

The war in Afghanistan is purely about eradicating the stronghold of the Taliban who were the real party to blame for the 9/11 attacks, not Iraq. The thought is if the Allied forces can either literally kill the Taliban, which they won't succeed in doing, or take away their support from the tribes that that will stop them functioning as a unit capable of organising terrorist attacks. If 9/11 hadn't happened America would not be in Afghanistan.

Personally, I don't believe the last Iraq war was about oil, nor do I think is the Libya affair. Iraq was Bush just wanting to hit out after 9/11 and Saddam took the brunt of it. I don't know if the WMD documents were faked or not as an excuse to go in, but at the time I believed what I was being told. It was only afterward when none were found that I questioned what had happened. Bush just wanted to finish what Daddy wasn't allowed to do in the 1st war because the UN resolution at the time did not allow it.

Libya is simply, IMO, an excuse to get rid of Gaddaffi. I know they are saying it's to stop civilians getting shot but thats BS. As I've said there are many other countries doin the same and worse so why isn't the west defending them also? I don't believe anyone is thinking 'profit' out Libya, they are just thinking 'lets get rid of Gaddaffi'

And that to me is interferring in another countries affair...and that's what I don't like about it. We kick and scream when people want to change how we live in our country, so why is it right that the west thinks we should 'give' democracy to other nations? Democracy to me is just another word for corruption in my eyes. Cos no matter what name you call it, those who have power are ALL CORRUPT.

Just my opinion!!!!

I don't understand politics and I certainly don't like whats going on...
I don't think it will ever make sense because we have people running the countries that don't live in the same world we do. They don't ask the same questions and don't have the same agenda. I don't see how it will ever make sense to me with that going on. No matter what the reasoning whether oil, or freedom or people I don't think it will ever make sense...and money wise I will never understand how government works.

My only strong opinion on this matter is based off of what I heard from our president. When asked why it took so long to start going after Gahdafi and I sort of liked his reply. He said yes it had been going on for far too long and persoanlly he hated what he was doing to civilians but he didnt feel it was his place to have us interfere...Then he went on to say that he felt our country was obligated to participate in aiding the Europeanians and upholding the wishes of the U.N. no fly zone and as their alley it was what we should do. He then finished by saying we were done..We did what we intended to do and aided our allies, destroyed ground him and would be handing the reins back to the Europeans....
I don't know if this is good or bad..I do know its what it is.....
So was it worth the cost of 100 missels...The wouldn't send the money to me anyway...

Well, ignoring the awful spelling, I pretty much agree with you.

It is a hard decision and no matter what was decided to be done they would get flak. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

At what point is it acceptable to go to anothers aid? At what point does the interests of your own country outweigh those who need help? Is it right to spend millions on the defence of others when your own country is in dire straits?

It's easy to voice opinions, but I'm glad I don't have to make the actual decisions.

and my bad spelling surprises you ?!!!!!!!!! lol

Fret I love your Avatar picture!

Chrissy wrote:

and my bad spelling surprises you ?!!!!!!!!! lol

Fret I love your Avatar picture!

it's seems to have got worse over the last week or so tho!