Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want us to butt out of Libya's business

122 replies

bupcakesandcunting · 20/03/2011 22:50

I know there are reasons for why we probably can't or for why were are obliged to "help" but I have a bad feeling about this. I feel like we're poking at a hornet's nest with this one and we're going to get stung.

AIBU to wish that we could just keep out of this? Can any clever MNers with more knowledge talk about why we are obliged to help/what the consequences will be if we don't stop with the no-fly zone? I read that the Arab Leaague are a bit Hmm at us already and I don't think we should be annoying them, really. The whole thing worries me quite a bit :(

OP posts:
AnswersInHaiku · 20/03/2011 22:52

With great power comes
Great responsibility.
So wise, Uncle Ben.

penguin73 · 20/03/2011 22:54

Oil!

GothAnneGeddes · 20/03/2011 22:55

Because the West gleefully bombing the crap out of Muslim-Majority countries generally hasn't produced marvellous outcomes of peace and bliss.

Plus, you know it's all about getting their hands on that oil, they couldn't give a flying kick about your average Libyan.

Original poster
bupcakesandcunting · 20/03/2011 22:56

Uncle Ben the rice man?

So it does all come down to oil? This is what I suspected but I thought it might have been a lazy assumption.

OP posts:
huddspur · 20/03/2011 22:58

We are intervening to prevent Gaddafi from killing large numbers of his own people. His son was threatening to turn the military on the whole on Bengazi. We've got a UN resolution which decrees a no fly zone as well as some other things, in order to implement this no fly zone then Gaddafi's air defences must be taken out in order to prevent him firing on any international planes that try and enforce the no fly zone. We are helping do this because we are a permanent member of the security council and it was us that were one of the main drivers behind the resolution.

penguin73 · 20/03/2011 22:59

Not comletely about oil, there are other political, diplomatic and financial issue involved but that's the main reason (although trying to argue the humanitarian side looks and sounds better)

Original poster
bupcakesandcunting · 20/03/2011 23:15

That's also what I thought, that we were obliged by the UN...

Honestly, I feel like I'm permanently wringing my hands at the world at the minute :(

OP posts:
GothAnneGeddes · 20/03/2011 23:16

Yes, it is all about oil.

MaisyMooCow · 20/03/2011 23:18

I'm not that great on these type of political issues but I definitely think we've jumped into this one a just a bit too early! Confused

woollyideas · 20/03/2011 23:19

Hudd, I think you might have just answered one of my questions, which was why is it always America closely followed by Britain sticking our heads above the parapet? (But I'm still not really very clear about why it's us rather than, say, Germany or any other country...) Can someone intelligent please explain?

JarethTheGoblinKing · 20/03/2011 23:21

YANBU, totally agree.

A1980 · 20/03/2011 23:26

I agree too. For ONCE can't the UK stay out it!!!!!! Can't France, Germany, etc handle it instead of us?

Also I don't think it's worth it for oil as Libya only has 2% of the world's oil. Saudi would meet demand if we couldn't get it from Libya.

The govt has cut everything and squeezed us all hard bu they've always got money for a fucking war.

Original poster
bupcakesandcunting · 20/03/2011 23:26

I agree about jumping in too early. IF Said Gaddafi kept his word about Bengazi THEN we should have gone in but I think it's empty threats. Libya knows the world is watching and only a fool (which he probably is, to be honest) would openly massacre their own people. When Saddam did it, it was hush-hush.

OP posts:
GothAnneGeddes · 20/03/2011 23:30

Bubcakes - Not really. You might not of heard of this but it wasn't even slightly hush hush.

P.S The person who lead that massacre now lives in Mayfair.

Original poster
bupcakesandcunting · 20/03/2011 23:36

Ohhhhhh, I thought he was suspected of ethnic cleansing but it was only proved when the Allied forces invaded Iraq and found the mass graves.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

OP posts:
huddspur · 20/03/2011 23:37

Bupcakes- If he did keep his word and attack Bengazi then it would be far too late for us to do anything to prevent it.

GothAnneGeddes · 20/03/2011 23:41

That link was for Syria, not Iraq, btw. Different tank, same fish mind.

Original poster
bupcakesandcunting · 20/03/2011 23:42

I know, I know. I'm just a bit Hmm about going in and bombarding a country on the strength of what is probably an idle threat designed to shit up the rebels. I know it's a risk but I think it's a risk worth taking.

OP posts:
Mytholmroyd · 21/03/2011 00:05

I dont know why its always us either and have also been wondering why some other country cant do it for a change. Or is it just that we dont always hear in our press about the other countries involved?

We cant afford it and dont need to make anyone else in the world hate us (because thats always what seems to be the eventual outcome even when we do it with what seem to be the best intentions).

The only plus point I can see is it might give our armed forces some experience and practice but then, they seem to have had a lot of that recently. Sad

LDNmummy · 21/03/2011 00:11

Yes it is all about oil, thereare plenty of places where the UK could intervene but don't because there is nothing in it for Britain.

And this is exactly why there is so much anti west sentiment.

This will end up fuelling terrorist ideology.

SpeedyGonzalez · 21/03/2011 00:13

We definitely did not go in too early; too late more like it, but at least there's still time to protect the revolution.

I'm not convinced it's about oil. Iraq clearly was; but this conflict has been handled completely differently. Our role in the UN obliges us to participate, doesn't it? So surely the question should not be why don't other UN members take part instead of us, rather, why don't Germany, etc, take part as well as us?

doutzen · 21/03/2011 00:28

I agree, Russia objecting so much is worrying me too.
Why can't the UK just sit back and let everyone else do the dirty work?
Is it about proving to the US that we're worthy allies or something? I vaguely remember the US making noise about the MOD budget cuts and not being strong enough for them or something along the lines

BaggedandTagged · 21/03/2011 00:37

"I dont know why its always us either and have also been wondering why some other country cant do it for a change."

To be fair, it was the French who took out the Gadaffi tanks/ artillery around Bengazi, so the surrender monkeys have stepped up to the plate this time. It's not always just GB and the US.

The thing is it's really easy to sit back and say "It's all about oil. How trite" but actually oil supply is pretty critical to everything, not just putting petrol into cars. All conflict in the history of the world (incl in the animal kingdom) is about territory and access to natural resources. Plus ca change.

BaggedandTagged · 21/03/2011 00:40

China and Russia object to nearly everything btw. It's not that they necessarily think it's a bad thing- they just don't want to get involved.

cumfy · 21/03/2011 01:09

Libya has about 50,000,000,000+ barrels of oil reserves worth about $5 trillion at current $100/barrel.

Easily worth $10-20 trillion as oil runs out.

That's about 1 million dollars per UK household.

Might come in handy on a rainy day, perhaps ?

Swipe left for the next trending thread