"No boots on ground," says the Prime Minister, yet he is now sending to assist the Libyan rebels 10 senior military officers to provide logistics and intelligence training. Fancy words with little truth yet not one politician has asked for the Westminster parliament to be recalled to discuss this extended action. Can't spoil their Easter holidays of course because life is tough as an MP.
Surely the presence of these personnel count as boots on the ground or are our politicians ignoring their previous utterances? Of course they are. We've provided aid, mobile phones and a multitude of other items to 'help' the opposition but we've yet to be told much about them. Regardless, David Cameron plods on in his suave manner, giving equipment to those who are happy to fire off machine guns into the air whenever it take their fancy.
Our intervention in Libya has always concerned me because I believe this civil war has nothing to do with the UK. The US knows the majority of its people are of a similar mind and has drawn back, but I suspect they still lead the operation from the sidelines.
Now that Gaddafi's henchmen consider these twenty boots on the ground are to be counted as ground troops (can you blame him?), we are at war with Libya. All the smooth talking from Westminster politicians will not change my opinion.
Richard has found the EU hasn't been idle either. They seem desperate to prove they can organise a war.
It makes me weep to think what these islands will look like in 30 years time. So many people from foreign lands have a grudge against the UK now and some of it is justified.
Is there not one influential politician out there who will stop the UK from becoming a place in which the safety of the population is at serious risk and becoming more so every day? It's already common knowledge we provide a shelter for those who wish harm to Britain. When will we realise our politicians have no interest in our safety or wellbeing, only their own?
Posts
28 comments:
"When will we realise our politicians have no interest in our safety or wellbeing, only their own?"
While we have a second-rate political system filled with second rate politicians assisted by a second-rate MSM, who between them have brain-washed the people so that the latter can no longer think for themselves - I suppose, SR, the answer to your question is: never.
I fear that military interventions such as this are a ruse by incumbent governments to cover up and distract us from the real failures of our political elite. Ie, they don't know what they are doing. So let's spin our way out by having a moral crusade.
The Vietnam War had military advisors.
At first.
subrosa
'So many people from foreign lands' Must admit to feeling like i live in a foreign land aleady.
military advisers wasn't that how the usa got sucked into Vietnam(not suggesting Libya is the uk version)
just pointing out how these things get a momentum all of there own(especially with a prime minister dipping in the polls)
conan
16'000 thats a lot of advisers
Rosa - not quite true. One MP has petitioned for parliaments recall over the Libya issue.
If memory serves he's a Conservative.
16'000[?]
The British Army couldn't put that many people on the ground.
NATO could.
But won't.
err conan
the usa had 16000 military advisors in vietnam
Unfortunately WfW, I have to agree with you. The older I become the more I realise no matter what the people do or want isn't relevant. The elite will rule and that's that.
Well said FE.
But Conan, we're told we're not at war with Libya. As if.
That's my chain of thought too Niko.
Yes you're right Crinkly but the poor man is a back bencher and with little or no influence. That's the way the HoC works.
The point of my argument Niko, was "at first".
Is Taz there?
That's right, we are not at war with libya. We are only at war with half of it.
It'll all turn on up whether half or the whole Woodsy.
And I thought it was only going to be a no-fly zone. What happened? Bombing tanks, now advisers. Is this what our glorious Dave intended from the very beginning?
Michael, I don't think Dave had any plan other than boosting his position on the world stage.
This will come back and bite us, of that there's no doubt.
This is part of a piece from the Guardian on Robert Black's blog today.
"Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, who took over from Moussa Koussa after his defection from Libya last month, said the regime was prepared to consider an interim national government before elections could be held. A six-month period had been discussed, he said.
Obeidi said discussions about reform included "whether the Leader [Muammar Gaddafi] should stay and in what role, and whether he should retire". Gaddafi's future has become a pivotal issue between the regime and the opposition, which has demanded his departure.
Obeidi said: "Everything will be on the table."
The minister struck a notably conciliatory tone when speaking in his Tripoli office to The Guardian, the BBC, ITN and the Washington Post. Asked about how diplomatic efforts could bridge the gulf between the Libyan government and the opposition, he said: "It is not a case of it going our way or their way, it's a case of how we can sit together with our brothers."
The international community must accept that Libya's future should be for Libyans alone to decide. "The US, Britain and France – sometimes those countries contradict themselves. They talk about democracy but when it comes to Libya, they say he [Gaddafi] should leave. It should be up to the Libyan people. This should not be dictated from any other head of state. It is against the principle of democracy." (...)
Obeidi accused western countries of standing in the way of a peace deal along the lines of the AU's proposal. "What's stopping it? Britain, France and to a certain extent the US are stopping it by continuing bombardment, arming the other side and making them more defiant."
The AU plan includes an immediate ceasefire, the delivery of humanitarian aid, the protection of foreign nationals in Libya, and dialogue between Libyan parties on the establishment of a transition period towards political reform.
Obeidi insisted that the Libyan government was ready to negotiate a ceasefire, involving all parties including Nato and monitored by international observers. "If there is a real ceasefire and these bombs stop, we could have a real dialogue among Libyans. It cannot be done with what is going on now."
The Libya government had been accused of not being serious about a ceasefire, he said. "This is not true." But, he added, a ceasefire needed a "mutual understanding and a mediator".
If Nato stopped its air strikes, Libyans would be able to resolve their differences. "We are all Libyans, their [the rebels'] blood is Libyan." His conciliatory tone towards the opposition was in marked contrast to the belligerence shown by other government officials who routinely speak of the rebels as "armed gangs" and "terrorists".
But, he said, the UK and France were impeding progress towards a ceasefire by offering military assistance to the rebels. The Anglo-French agreement to send a team of military advisers to Benghazi would "prolong the confrontation, there is no doubt about that".
"The more the west gives arms, the more they will plant hatred. We do not want to be another Iraq or Somalia. The west could advise the other side to listen to common sense and study the peace initiatives."
A ceasefire, Obeidi said, was "the only way to give peace a chance. The situation for sure is not so bright now. But I think we can have a light at the end of the tunnel."
That last piece proves quite clearly who is obstruccting progress. The "democratic" west that isn't willing to allow that group they keep calling "the people of Libya" to determine their own future.
Jo, thanks for taking the trouble to post that because I missed it. I heard a little of Obeidi on TV today when he mentioned having military advise the opposition would be seen as war and I thought he wasn't wrong.
I said from the start we shouldn't be involved other than in offering humanitarian aid and I stick by that.
No problem Subrosa. I found the piece fascinating it was so reasonable and yet it didn't feature on the main news programmes tonight. Odd that, eh? The AU reps were sent to find a way forward, they found one and yet Cameron and that infuriating wee man (the French one, not Hague)are intent on making things worse. And sending UK personnel in there will do exactly that. As you say this was about humanitarian aims and bringing about stability. What we are actually creating is complete war. Incidentally I believe a UK journalist has been killed in Libya today.
Jo I've just finished a post for morning in which I say just that, but I also said it from the beginning - we are now at war with Libya. The 'rebels' could well turn at any time as nobody really knows who they are and have little clue of their aims, other than to depose Gaddafi.
I must see if I can find out something about the journalist. Thanks for letting me know.
Tim Hetherington.
"UK from becoming a place in which the safety of the population is at serious risk and becoming more so every day? It's already common knowledge we provide a shelter for those who wish harm to Britain. When will we realise our politicians have no interest in our safety or wellbeing, only their own?"
I'm an Eastern European who deals with Britons on daily basis, for the sheer pleasure of it... and for intellectual benefits too. I do this for years. But even I started to consider you as enemies, basically, after I saw your attitudes to the Libyan crisis. So, I think you're very right about the increasing lack of safety for Britain.
What attitudes do you mean JR? Those where I disagree about us leading the no fly zone or arming the rebels or helping, along with other countries, to provide humanitarian aid?
Oh, hello. I think the essence is in my comment under the new blog entry. We can talk there.
By the way, I found your place via Craig Murray's blog.
JR I would like you to say more about our attitudes. There are varied attitudes here to the Libya situation and the way in which the UK has addressed it
Hello JR. You're more than welcome to join the discussions. Craig's blog is one of my regular reads, although I don't always agree with him his posts always create a reaction.
Post a Comment