Donate SIGN UP

Birds Of A Feather?

Avatar Image
Quizmonster | 07:41 Wed 14th Sep 2016 | News
19 Answers
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/710187/Report-MPs-criticises-David-Cameron-Libya-bombing-campaign
(Please understand that I accessed the website of the Daily Express solely in order that I could not be accused of “leftyism” had I chosen the same information from more reliable sources elsewhere!)
So, Bush, Blair, dodgy intelligence information, regime change, bombing, no post-invasion plans, rise of militant organisations, refugees, Iraq...as opposed to Sarkozy, Cameron, dodgy intelligence information, regime change, bombing, no post-invasion plans, rise of militant organisations, refugees, Libya.

And the difference is?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 19 of 19rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Is anyone saying there is a major difference ? (I'll check the link in a mo but this was on morning TV earlier.)

This is the issue with the world's trouble spots. Sometimes it's damned if you do something and still damned if you don't. That stated one needs to consider 'what if' scenarios and have good plans for each eventuality. Know what is needed. And not lie to the people nor parliament to gets things decided.
None - tragically.

The similarities though, are glaringly obvious.

I remember travelling on a cruise a few years ago, and one of the guest speakers was Martin Bell, who was riveting, and caused a few people to walk out with his trenchant - but superbly argued views.

The point he made that stuck in my mind was the time of the Falklands, when the Tory cabinet were firmly against military engagement with Argentina for one very god reason - with the exception of Margaret Thatcher, they had all had direct experience of warfare, and for them it was a reality, not a historical concept or a vague idea.

Fast forward to Blair/Bush/Cameron, and you get power-mad egotists determined to create their 'legacy' by interfering in foreign countries' activities with no proper plan or strategy, the results of which rumble on today and for the foreseeable future.
Old_Geezer - //That stated one needs to consider 'what if' scenarios and have good plans for each eventuality. Know what is needed. And not lie to the people nor parliament to gets things decided. //

That is the root of the problem right there.

There are politicians, and leaders, who are so set on their own dreams of historical immortality that they wilfully ignore advice and more importantly evidence, that the path they are embarking on will end in death and destruction, and their stated aims will not be realised.

Hopefully, Mrs May seems not only to be willing to dismantle the egotistical cronyist dreams of her predecessor, but she appears mindful not to rush into things because she wants to have her name writ large in history when her career is over.
The conclusions of the report..... if anyone is interested in the facts:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11908.htm#_idTextAnchor068
From memory, this bombing was supported by the UN.

Why are we getting upset over the removal of yet another blood-thirsty dictator, one that supplied the IRA with guns ?
Mikey > Why are we getting upset over the removal of yet another blood-thirsty dictator

Lots of clues in the OP Mikey.Look at the messes that have been left behind.How much thought do you think was given by Blair,Cameron etc to what might happen following the removal of dictators?
Agchristie......I agree that the aftermath of the removal of Dictators wasn't given anything like enough consideration, but I can't summon up much enthusiasm for Gaddafi.
Read the report Mikey. It explains why we should be concerned.
Mikey > but I can't summon up much enthusiasm for Gaddafi.

Me neither or Saddam,etc but the damage caused by the destabilising effects are sadly being seen on a massive scale.Removing these dictators was somehow seen as 'job done' but far from it.

Ours and international leaders have created a set of circumstances that threaten world peace far more than the people they helped to remove from power could have done.
mikey - //Why are we getting upset over the removal of yet another blood-thirsty dictator, one that supplied the IRA with guns ? //

There is a phrase that neatly sums up the removal of any regime head - 'power vacuum'.

Nothing exists in islolation - and in unstable countries like Libya, there was no guarantee, and more importantly no plan thought out, to prevent a 'Dictator mark 2' simply stepping in.

History shows that when Russia pulled its army out of Afghanistan, the people were desperate for someone to come in and organise things and give them a sense of being looked after. Someone did - they are called The Taliban.

The sooner politicians stop treating international politics like a power game and understand the consequences of their egotistical nonsense, the safer the world will be.
I've not read the report in full, but what I don't see there is an admission that Libya was already in the grip of a civil war, unlike Iraq, when we intervened with, unlike Iraq, UN backing, even tacit Russian support. Unlike Iraq, Libya already had no functioning governmental infrastructure, and therefore was always likely to need careful attention post Gaddafi.
So there are grounds for severe criticism, but it seems highly contentious to suggest that the situation in Libya is solely the result of outside intervention, or even partly. After all, we didn't - and not should we have -intervene in Syria, and that worked out ok :-)
I reckon Dave and Tony should get together and compare notes. To be fair to them both, if they did nowt they'd just have a different bunch whining at them.
TTT........wel,l we did next-to-nowt about Assad, and he is responsible for 100,000's of deaths in his own country.
Cameron's Annus Horriblis continues...

Loses Brexit vote - unfortunate.
Prime Ministership becomes untenable - boo hoo.
His policies are rapidly trashed by new PM (see also Osborne) - Yippee
Credited with the rise of ISIS - holds head in shame
yes mikey that demonstrates my point, if we went in we'd have another set of moaners, you can't win.
If the free world hadn't have gone into the former Yugoslavia 20 odd years ago, what would Milosevic, Karadžić, and Co. have got up to ?
I'm not taking any position mikey, Im just saying that no matter what we do there are snipers on the sidelines.
When you really think about it some of our politicians past and present are bloody dangerous,moreso than some of those they are meant to be taking out of commission.

It's one thing to be articulate but it's another to be a great orator.

It's one thing to be intelligent but it's another to be a strategic thinker.

It all smacks of short-termism.Take out a supposed immediate threat and ignore the aftershocks.It's somebody else's problem.I've been seen to do my bit kind of attitude.

We can discuss any amount of tyrants and the misery that they have heaped on their peoples but the overriding question has to be:

Is the world a safer place following my/our intervention?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Well put ag.

1 to 19 of 19rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Birds Of A Feather?

Answer Question >>