Libya: Nobody seems to be buying the spin.......

[jimslip]

turanhosting wrote:

> Despite the best efforts of Murdoch's Sky News, nobody seems to
> be buying the war crimes spin in Libya, in fact the public
> comments look exceedingly bad for mssrs Cameron and Clegg. ?850
> million later, what has been achieved exactly?
>

Absolutley nothing at all. Maybe since Thatcher's resurgence after the Falklands, all politicians since believe, there's nothing like a war, any war, to increase one's popularity.

The real answer is probably as simple as, "Where there's war, there's bucks!", because you can be sure of one thing, there are many raking in the wonga on the corpses of thousands.

Cost of a Tomahawk Cruise missile:

[David Johnson]

In simple terms, I suppose the impression you get from press and TV about Libya is Gaddafi regime, evil; rebels and NTC, what a nice bunch of guys.

I suspect it is a lot more complex than that. What I find a bit strange is if Gaddafi is so universally hated, how come it has taken 6 months of incessant Nato bombing of everything that remotely looks like a military target, bunker, communications network etc; large scale weapons deliveries to the rebels; Nato troops on the ground organising the rebel attacks and yet the fighting is still going on even though the capital city has fallen?

I think this could be described as the honeymoon period. We have had the joyful scenes in Green Square. The huge question is - can the NTC deliver in terms of security, law and order, food supplies, infrastructure rebuilding etc. If they can't then the whole thing could completely fall apart into various factions controlling different parts of the country. The fact that it was apparently members of the rebels who bumped off the rebel leader, General Younis and the info that various army leaders have been quoted as stating they do not take orders from the NTC, does not bolster confidence that this is going to turn out fine and dandy.

Cheers
D

[Jonone]

Shortly after Mubarek was ousted in Egypt (within a week) there were demonstrations campaigning for better wages and a better standard of living. I assume this doesn't just happen and then dissipate; if this is the case the 'campaign' such as it may be is ongoing but is unreported because it isn't deemed to be newsworthy. As soon as the 'dictator' is displaced the people, not unreasonably, expect things to get better and that this should happen fairly quickly.

The message is that the previous Government was corrupt and self-serving and something better will be put in it's place. Your lives are not as they should be because of this corrupt regime and they will get better. Things will improve - that's what people have died for - but it seems to me that the general populace of these countries are always at the back of the queue when it comes to the dividends and benefits of wholesale change.

The way it's reported in the UK is that the pro-democracy movements win because they get elected governments, but they never seem to talk about other expectations or hopes that they might have in terms of benefitting from a more equitable share in the country's present and future prosperity ... such as it may be.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Oil. No further comments required.

[frankthring]

Arginald is right - in the realpolitik world of high stakes diplomacy it is
the West`s desire to get Libya`s oil that has fuelled all this balderdash
about helping the rebels achieve a democratic Libya, end this evil
dictatorship etc etc.
We should not get too hypocritical about all this. Libyan oil will keep down
the price at the already high price at the pumps and despite much crap
written about global warming I have not seen a person yet who has sold
his car....
As I wrote last week, the Middle East is the most dangerous area to make
predictions. The whole "Arab Spring" tosh of a few months back is now
fast stagnating. Britain`s involvement in Libya is nothing to yell with pride
and could still have ugly repercussions. We might want their oil but the
final price may be horribly high....

[David Johnson]

Nato forces got involved in Libya, ostensibly to defend civilians, particularly those in Benghazi which was threatened by Gaddafi forces.

Six months on and the military position seems to have changed completely due to Nato involvement. Apparently, Gaddafi forces are more or less defeated apart from the stronghold of Sirte, with a population of over 60,000 civilians.

THe rebels which now have overwhelming firepower have threatened Sirte with all-out attack unless Gaddafi and his men surrender.

William Hague was asked today "If an all-out attack on Sirte starts, will the Nato forces intervene to defend civilians?"

The answer, No with the usual weasel words e.g. they have supported Gaddafi etc etc.

So much for protecting civilians. Same old, same old British foreign policy hypocrisy

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

Ok, what did Keith do to get kicked? Bit out of the blue.