[dirtyvileHARRYuk]

is Cameron a Blair 11

i can remember when we entered Iraqi,
the streets of London were a protest plaque.
and just like the Bush, obama is leading,
Cameron is like Blair, withdraw is not the reading.
the street are not a anti war mode,
fighter jets are raring, and ready to explode.
Gaddofi is playing the game,but support is dropping,
he's got the world on his shoulders, but No's no stopping.
whats missing from this is Popeye and olive oil,
unlike Iraqi Libya has no rich soil.
so why are people not objecting,
they are playing God and it looks like rows they are selecting.
in we will go and for ever more it will haunt,
every political debate, Libya will taunt.
the Joe says we should back out now and don't invade,
then Cameron will not be like Blair, we can put down the spade.
Popeye and olive oil may be in love,
but Cameron's mistake will push him into Blairs glove.



(so we are ready for our planes to drop bombs on this country but may i ask whats so diffrent to when we did it over iraqi ? because if i remember correctly there was protest after protest ? whats the diffrance here ? someone please tell the joe ?)

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by dirtyvileHARRYuk

is Cameron a Blair 11

i can remember when we entered Iraqi,
the streets of London were a protest plaque.
and just like the Bush, obama is leading,
Cameron is like Blair, withdraw is not the reading.
the street are not a anti war mode,
fighter jets are raring, and ready to explode.
Gaddofi is playing the game,but support is dropping,
he's got the world on his shoulders, but No's no stopping.
whats missing from this is Popeye and olive oil,
unlike Iraqi Libya has no rich soil.
so why are people not objecting,
they are playing God and it looks like rows they are selecting.
in we will go and for ever more it will haunt,
every political debate, Libya will taunt.
the Joe says we should back out now and don't invade,
then Cameron will not be like Blair, we can put down the spade.
Popeye and olive oil may be in love,
but Cameron's mistake will push him into Blairs glove.



(so we are ready for our planes to drop bombs on this country but may i ask whats so diffrent to when we did it over iraqi ? because if i remember correctly there was protest after protest ? whats the diffrance here ? someone please tell the joe ?)

Depends at what time period during the variety of problems the world had with Iraq you are talking about. At various times prior to the party in the desert part 2 period the coalition forces were simply acting in accord with UN mandates and in a humanitarian action ie in enforcing a no fly zone over the areas of kurdish settlements in both North and South Iraq.

Saying that the UK and US governments were very hypocritical by flying out of Turkish bases to enforce a protection zone over the Iraqi Kurdish areas, while at the same time following a procedure called "No Fly Tuesdays" where no US/UK aircraft where not allowed in the area of Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey.

The reason being was so that our "allies" the Turks could bomb the sh1t out of the Kurds in Southern Turkey without fear of being seen, reported etc.

I am not saying I support the current action with Libya, however Gaddafi has vowed to retake Benghazi then rout out all the rebels and make them pay, etc.

Are we right to interfere with the running of another country? Thats down to your moral viewpoint.

[joeysteele]

It does seem every govt wants to be seen as a strong one in that it gets involved in conflicts.
Margaret Thatcher had the Falklands and the early part of the first gulf war over Kuwait which was handed over to John Major in 1991.
Then Blair had his Iraq war and also involvement in Afghanistan,so whether Cameron is a mark 11 Blair or not,it seems he is also an interventionist, wanting to try for his glory time too.
I feel this one if we go in in any form, the moment any loss of life occurs then this could be this coalition govts Iraq and it will bring negatives for them as Iraq did for Blair.

History will be kinder to Blair for the fact such an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein was got rid of,he should have been got rid of in the first Gulf war.
Maybe Cameron thinks he can succeed where Blair failed,however I don't think the massive majority of people of the UK support intervention in Libya at all,whereas roughly half did support the Iraq conflict until the doubts came about later with hindsight.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It does seem every govt wants to be seen as a strong one in that it gets involved in conflicts.
Margaret Thatcher had the Falklands and the early part of the first gulf war over Kuwait which was handed over to John Major in 1991.
Then Blair had his Iraq war and also involvement in Afghanistan,so whether Cameron is a mark 11 Blair or not,it seems he is also an interventionist, wanting to try for his glory time too.
I feel this one if we go in in any form, the moment any loss of life occurs then this could be this coalition govts Iraq and it will bring negatives for them as Iraq did for Blair.

History will be kinder to Blair for the fact such an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein was got rid of,he should have been got rid of in the first Gulf war.
Maybe Cameron thinks he can succeed where Blair failed,however I don't think the massive majority of people of the UK support intervention in Libya at all,whereas roughly half did support the Iraq conflict until the doubts came about later with hindsight.

Just one point. The UN directive only gives authorisation to set up a no fly zone, however it also allows the use of ground pounders to use against anything that may threaten the aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.

The idea is to even the playing field and prevent what is a rebellion turning into a one sided massacre.

Cameron knows this, he only asked for UN backing to a No Fly Zone. We dont have enough trrops left to put men on the ground in any significant numbers for any length of time.

He is possibly hoping to do something Blair could never have achieved: Allowing a democratic movement to achieve the removal of the current regime and hopefully the installation of a more democratic regime without the use of ground forces.

The UN probably wont give further mandates to allow an invasion, they will allow the occasional incursion into Libya for example CSAR(Combat Search and Rescue) missions to recover downed aircrew within a predetermined time of ditching, close protection for diplomatic liaison teams( think those blades that were held by rebels the other week) but thats about it.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Just one point. The UN directive only gives authorisation to set up a no fly zone, however it also allows the use of ground pounders to use against anything that may threaten the aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.

The idea is to even the playing field and prevent what is a rebellion turning into a one sided massacre.

Cameron knows this, he only asked for UN backing to a No Fly Zone. We dont have enough trrops left to put men on the ground in any significant numbers for any length of time.

He is possibly hoping to do something Blair could never have achieved: Allowing a democratic movement to achieve the removal of the current regime and hopefully the installation of a more democratic regime without the use of ground forces.

The UN probably wont give further mandates to allow an invasion, they will allow the occasional incursion into Libya for example CSAR(Combat Search and Rescue) missions to recover downed aircrew within a predetermined time of ditching, close protection for diplomatic liaison teams( think those blades that were held by rebels the other week) but thats about it.

Yes, I can go along with you on that,if the aims you outline can be acheived with no ground forces then I will applaud Camerons efforts, sadly once we get involved in another Nations problems it seems things escalate,then the real diffiulties come into play.

I hope the scenario you describe in your post as the intentions of the UN plan do come about the way you outline, that would be good for everyone including the Libyans. So let's hope that is how it turns out.

I think in Iraq, the early hope also was to remove Sddam Hussein quickly but when that didn't happen then things seemed to escalate and become all out war to get him,that was a mistake of Blairs,he should have agreed to go so far with Bush and make sure he had a get out strategy.

I am still of the view the World and Iraq is a better place for not having Hussein in power anywhere and I also think the World will be a better place if Gaddafi is gone too.

We just have to hope all goes well if action is taken as to Libya..

[arista]

No Blair is a Evil War Criminal
who tricked MP's

[Angus]

Thatcher should not be put in the same category as Blair, Major or Cameron.

The Falkland Islands are British, and our troops were sent to defend our own against the Argentinian aggressors. If Argentina wants to argue the toss about who has most claim to the islands, it should do so through the UN. The Falkland Islands have been under British sovereignty for almost 200 years, and the bulk of islanders are of British descent. Furthermore, it was an Englishman who made the first recorded landing on the islands in 1690.