Cameron and Sarkozy get heroes' welcomes in Libya

[longfingernails]

but at what cost? This wasn't our problem.

www.reuters.com/video/2011/09/15/uks-cameron-attends-benghazi-rally?videoId=221555770&videoChannel=117764

Good to see he did it the right way (logistic/air support paving the way for a domestic uprising) rather the messianic Blair "freedom at the barrel of a gun" approach - but still. Would rather that money (together with the entire non-emergency foreign aid budget) was spent reducing the deficit or giving tax cuts to Brits rather than propping up Libyans.

I heard them on the radio, WTF were they thinking doing that style of WOOPING each other up?

It was a TOTAL GAFFE by David Cameron, what a fucking idiot, it was horrific to listen too, who ever advised him to go there and act like that needs firing.

I felt ashamed to be from the UK hearing him and that French twat bafoooning on, like posh little privalidge kids in the toddler room playing at war, again fucking embaressing as ANYTHING I HAVE EVER HEARD.

The prospect of a peaceful, cooperative Libya was a prize worth going for. Cameron and Sarkozy were the ones spearheading international support for the rebels so it was appropriate for them to be there accepting the thanks and making encouraging noises. Long-term it's very important that GB is in on the ground floor of the new Libya as the rebuilding will present many useful trade opportunities.

What a pair of pricks.

It's all about the oil = money.

And what's wrong with oil or money? This country needs both.

"It's all about the oil = money."

That's kind of where it all falls down actually.... We already had the oil.

We've had access to Libyan oil since Gadaffi officially dropped his WMD programs. The US normalised relations and stopped its sanctions back in 2006.

Yes it left a psychotic nutter in charge of the country, but that doesn't usually bother us, the oil fields were opened up and we had long term (25 year) contracts to exploit them.

And we've now gone and put all that at risk and interrupted the oil flow for an indeterminate period of time. We have no guarantees that the new Government will respect all the contracts of the old one and we might end up with a Government that is far more hostile to the west than the current one.

So it's very odd, nice and secure oil has been put at risk.

I don't believe for one moment that that was done for purely moral reasons, we're quite happy to accept mad tyrants if we get the oil, but it's nowhere near as simple as saying "we did it for the oil".

Perhaps DC and Co were worried that the new government wouldn't honour the agreement when they looked into our dealings with Gadaffi so went in there to 'help' them.

Will add that I know naff all about it really so not sure why I commented .

Glorifying it all, whooping at what? A victory? Where is Gadaffi? They don't care, they have their hands on what they want. They are not heros, what about shoing some restaint, respect and caution instead of a bunch of toddlers on a sugar rush.

Why have the UK or France not waded into Congo? No oil? Too far? The UK & others picks and choose depending on what is in it for the UK. Where are they off to next?

Well said BadgersPaws

"The UK & others picks and choose depending on what is in it for the UK. "

Again... what is wrong with that? Why wade into countries if it doesn't benefit us to do so? We're part of the UN so we have certain obligations and I happen to think we should be urging the UN or the African states to tackle Somalia, given that our own citizens seem to be a target for murder, kidnapping and piracy. The Libyan situation was handled well... unlike Iraq there were clear terms of engagement and clear objectives