Libya?

[gregssausageroll]

I am may be living under a stone and totally out of touch but why are the UK forces involved?

Because we're in the UN...

yes but yes but yes but

why are WE specifically involved? where are the German or French or SPanish or Italian or DAnish (you get the idea) forces?

I haven't seen a good answer to this.

Thanks Chil. Did think that but then thought the same as catinthehat!

well I live under a flowerpot, not a stone and I would LOVE someone to explain it to me.

I can see no justification at all

Oil....?

yeeeeeees but

come on

that also applies to Germans/French/Spanish/Italian/Danes/etc, and they aren't out there AFAIK

France, Italy, Denmark and Spain are taking part with various numbers of planes and ships as you can see from the list below full article here. If you remember, M Sarkozy was leading the calls for military action

"Belgium: six fighter jets;Britain: 17 jets and two vessels;Bulgaria: one vessel;Canada: 11 jets and one vessel;Denmark: four jets;France: 33 jets and one vessel;Greece: two jets and one vessel;Italy: 16 jets and four vessels;Netherlands: seven jets and one vessel;Norway: six jets;Romania: one vessel;Spain: six jets and two vessels;Turkey: seven jets and six vessels;United States: 90 jets and one vessel. "

Germany is not participating but Germany is always reluctant to commit their forces to military action for obvious reasons. And the other NATO members not taking part would be former Eastern-Bloc countries. As Russia was against the action, I expect there are political reasons for that as well

I am pretty sure the french are there too, I do noyt know about the others

AH!
thank you Chil.
I really did not have that info at all

Google and ye shall receive.... It's really not tough to find this stuff out, even if it hasn't made it onto the 9 o'clock news.

I actually think David Cameron has got us involved mainly because of the fact Gadaffi was truly slaughtering his own people. That much isn't in dispute. At least not with me.

But my problem is that it's another war we've now gotten involved in without really any thought as to what specifically our aims are, whether or not it's achievable and what our exit criteria will be.

So ok, we've managed to stop the slaughter....for the moment. Remember, there's no UN mandate for regime change. So Gadaffi is still the official Libyan government. He's now no doubt busily consolidating his forces and will bide his time until the coalition lose their nerve, the press leave before resuming his slaughter.

So are we now going to patrol the skies for another 20+ years until he dies of natural causes?

The rebels are lightly armed and disorganised. We cant arm them either so they can't really do the necessary.

Frankly it's all a big fat mess and we're now bombing a third muslim country. A fact I'm sure Al Queda are making the most of.

"Google and ye shall receive.... It's really not tough to find this stuff out, even if it hasn't made it onto the 9 o'clock news."

er yes, thanks for that, I was trying to be polite and simultaneously bump the thread

still doesn't answer the question:

"why are the UK forces involved". we have both "obvious" and "political " reasons NOT to be involved, like all those you have mentioned - yet there we are, very likely to bring in the ground forces next

it seems ridiculous - we have no money, depleted services, you name it, there is no good reason to be there. I just don't get it, even though I grasped IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN (though didn't like it)

So, go on then - what are the obvious & political & other reasons WHY we are involved do people reckon?

"David Cameron has got us involved mainly because of the fact Gadaffi was truly slaughtering his own people"

but but but but

there are whole lists of countries out there where the leaders are hounding & destroying elements of their populations, but CallMeDave isn't out there with the jets...

I'd like to know more detail about why other NATO/ UN members are NOT involved. That's just as important a part of the picture as asking why we're involved. E.g., why do Russia and China appear have a policy of never getting involved when their peers do?

As far as our involvement in Libya is concerned, I do actually think we're in it primarily for humanitarian reasons. Unlike Iraq, which I never believed in.

I think the UN has stepped in on this one a) because it can and b) because it's worthwhile. It's a question of pragmatism The situation in Zimbabwe, for example, is pretty bad on the human rights front but, putting it baldly, it's not that worthwhile to get involved and it's not affecting anything much other than Zimbabwe. The Burmese situation ditto. Other ME countries are putting down their rebellions but not quite on the same scale as Libya. China commits some terrible acts against its own people but we can't sail in with the fighter jets for obvious reasons. The UN was widely condemned post Rwanda and Bosnia for doing too little too late to prevent wholesale slaughter. It's a tough call.

Gaddafi has been a thorn in the side for decades and, having gone through the card alternating air-strikes, appeasement and sanctions, I suppose this is seen as an opportunity to help out. Agree with NiceGuy2, however, it's clearly not going to be enough to bomb a few installations, supply the rebels with telephones and hope he bows out gracefully.

Actually I've never understood why the UN has never ruled similarly on Zimbabwe. Gaddafi and Mugabe are achieving the same ends by different means, aren't they?

Mugabe, nutter though he is, hasn't sent warplanes and tanks to level towns, though, has he? He's more in the 'gross mismanagement' class of tinpot dictator i.e. tackled with sanctions, and hasn't upgraded to 'mass genocide' which would require military intervention.

We are involved because we are members of NATO and it is coordinating the no fly zone. All those nations mentioned earlier are either full NATO members or Partners for Peace members.

www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-FAFCF5E9-A0D14DC9/natolive/71679.htm refers.

We are involved because for some reason we see ourselves as morally superior so we should for some reason intervene.

The Russian's & Chinese are more of the mindset that "It's not our country therefore it's nothing to do with us and we'll mind our own business"

It does make you wonder at the wisdom of scrapping both our aircraft carriers. They'd be bloody handy around now wouldn't they?

On the other hand, if we're ever asked to pitch in again we can always come back with... 'look, we'd love to help, we really would, but we don't have any aircraft carriers so off you go and all the best' ;)

and that would certainly have been my first answer if asked, second being
"also, sorry chaps , bit skint this week, catch you later"