[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yes it was me who agreed with you, and not to blow my own trumpet but I have been talking about this ever since the possibility of intervening was first raised 3 or 4 years ago But the way in which Miliband has raised this issue is naked opportunism and nothing more. The failure of intervention was obvious very soon after Gaddafi's death; Libya's descent into chaos has been happening almost ever since. Not once has Miliband raised this in PMQs, not once has he brought the issue forward in a substantial way. Now he wants to talk about post-intervention planning? Why could that be? He was never keen to discuss it before, he was never keen to discuss it in regard to Iraq where he voted four times against an enquiry, and lets not forget he is the leader of the party which has a shameful foreign policy record in the last fifteen years.

And Miliband supported Libya intervention in the first place! In fact 557 MPs did, only 13 voted against it. So let's not get into a finger pointing game. I say again that the disaster of Libya was not the post-intervention planning, it was the decision to intervene in the first place.

I don't think Labour has any more a shameful record as to foreign policy than some previous govts;
Iraq was as wrong the first time in 1990,in my view, never mind the 2nd time under Labour.
Maybe had they gone about it the right way in 1990,there would have been no need for a 2nd invasion at all.
I didn't see the need to get so heavily entrenched in Afghanistan either.

The Conservatives supported Iraq but some of them are doing an about turn as to it now too, well after the event.

What I will concede is that Miliband should have been pressing the mess left in Libya more,however I have watched political programmes where the moment Labour mentioned things like Libya,they got a backlash for Iraq and the mess left there.

What is a fact, is the fact that Miliband wasn't even an MP when the Iraq vote was taken and he has always said he disagreed with same.
He may not have raised Libya in public,I don't know for sure whether he has or not.
He did make reference to the chaos looming in Libya at the time he was consulted on would he support action in Syria however.
Which to his full credit, he refused to do,even firmly getting the vote passed too,to close the door on leaving options open for Cameron to take action in Syria if necessary without a new vote in parliament.

I think foreign policy under this govt; has been as much a disaster as the previous govt;
It doesn't,for me anyway, bear thinking about as to where we and the world would be, had David Cameron got his way to go into Syria too.
This is bad enough.

I didn't agree with action in Libya and was disappointed Labour backed it too,however, with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems,the vote would have passed anyway,very easily.
However further, just as Labour have to take the responsibility as to how we left Iraq, which although the Conservatives supported,they were not the govt; of the day so cannot be held responsible for the aftermath of same.

That same scenario applies here, and this PM had the hindsight of Iraq to look to as to Libya.
Although Labour supported the action, it had to be down to the govt; in power to see the action and aftermath through.
What we are seeing now is the total failure of Cameron to learn from history with full hindsight of events too and to have done not a thing as the situation he helped bring about in Libya got worse and worse.