There seem to be more and more hints about ground troops being needed in Libya (and I don't mean a few special forces operating clandestinely).
Surely they couldn't be that stupid, not for a third time?
I know that Cam has said there will be no invasion, but he's said lots of things.
It's likely that the only way to save a bloodbath will be to put troops in, on the ground. Not very likely that air power alone can achieve anything.
It is an awful dilemma, but human lives are being lost all the time - someone has to step in (and yes, I know the "Why us" argument and all the other places where killing is going on), but if it was your own family being slaughtered how would you feel if the world was doing nothing to save them?
It will be our own families getting slaughtered if we 'go in'. We have no place being there and we need to learn from our past mistakes. The French are gung ho, let them put their troops in.
arab league should sort him out or african union
"It's likely that the only way to save a bloodbath will be to put troops in, on the ground."
The way to save a bloodbath is to demoralise Gaddafi's supporters - once senior army officers give up the fight the rest will follow. Then comes the problem - someone has to stop the rebel forces from embarking on an orgy of revenge.
What's needed is a rebel leader, someone who speaks for them, and for the Libyan people. It's a very tall order, and it's looking increasingly like a situation in which - eventually - a peace-keeping presence will be necessary.
A prerequisite for peace is the absence of Gaddafi and his family members. Complicated doesn't begin to describe the problem.
Should'nt have been there in the first place
Glad to see we agree on the need for boots on the ground, and, yes, the real object will be to get a credible rebel leader who can establish some sort of control over his own 'side'. Unfortunately it looks like a lot more killing is on the cards before Gaddafi is brought down, his backers seem very loyal at the moment.
We are there as part of a large coalition of Nations, would you have us withdraw into 'Little Englander' status and not attempt to play our part in world events?
Perhaps we should not be so omnipotent. We can't solve all the problems in the world when our resources are so depleted. It may seem selfish but "charity does sometimes begin at home." This intervention runs into all sorts of problems. What about Zimbawe where historically we had a direct hand in bringing it about. Again the UK is being accused of self serving interests, particularly oil. I do not claim to have a solution but this intervention is defnitely wrong, perhaps even immoral. There are many parts in the world which are politically probelmatic that we have had a hand in but in these areas we seem to take a back seat. The most immoral stance that the West has taken is that of the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict which we helped to create. If only the West focused it's energy into solving the issues there first it'll have more credibility. Does it not seem that in the present situation as in Iraq the West comes a bit across as a bully whilst claiming to be fair handed.
We'll still be wondering how to get out of a Libyan commitment in ten years time.
But, as I stressed, earlier, we are there as part of a large coalition - so do we just unilaterally abandon our partners?
Are all the participants only doing it 'for the oil'?
You keep making it sound like only the UK is involved, here.
I do not accept an argument of " Because we cannot do everything, then we should do nothing". I agree, and have said, that there are other problems in the world.
I'm sure those on the receiving end of Gaddafi's wrath will understand how 'immoral' you feel it is for the coalition to try and prevent their massacre.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.