Libya; Russia criticises the Western-led air strikes

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by finknottle, Mar 28, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Russia is saying that the continuing air-strikes amount to taking sides in a civil war and breached the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

    I have to agree, we have levelled the playing field and it is now time to withdraw and let the Libyan's sort it out one way or another.
  2. Apart from the armour and heavy artillery still being fielded by government troops, despite what the crabs (nations various) have knocked out.
  3. Who cares, it is my opinion that we have done enough especially as no Arab war- planes have yet fired on forces loyal to Gaddafi.
  4. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    As remarked earlier:

    4,000 US Marines inbound & 800 Royals on standby.
  5. The UN resolution allows for the protection of civilians.

    Anyone who has taken up arms is, by definition, no longer a civilian (they are 'belligerants'), and is not accorded the protection of a civilian under the Geneva Convention whilst they are bearing arms (though they are not to be treated as Prisoners of War).

    The attacks on Iraq might have stretched the limit of legitimacy, but this action in Libya is clearly beyond what was agreed by the UN, and has no legitimacy whatsoever. We should step back now.
  6. Magda

    Magda War Hero Book Reviewer

    I wasn't entirely sure involvement was a good thing to start with and the longer this continues, the more unsure I am. Whilst I would like to see the Libyans overthrow Gaddafi, I wonder more and more what the repercussions of UN/NATO involvement will be. I am still not convinced that Gaddafi's replacement will be any better than he was. We have no way as yet of telling what the long-term effects of this uprising will be.

    Also, are we going to start policing the rest of the Arab world in this way? The Syrians and Yemeni are both in the midst of attempting rebellion and are being shot at by government forces - are we going to stride in there too, guns blazing in their defence? We cannot police the entire world with No Fly Zones. On the other hand, can we just allow Gaddafi and others like him to continually repress the basic rights of the citizens of their countries using whatever force is necessary?

    This is a minefield and Pandora's box all rolled into one. Precedents may yet be set which must be adhered to.
  7. I listened to what the Conservative MP Rory Stewart had to say on question time last week. It was refreshing to listen to an MP who clearly knew his subject. His unease was that we could all too easily get sucked deeper into the Libyan conflict and that it must not happen.

    Link to an excellent piece by him.
  8. :sign3:I'm with you Magda............the whole Arab world is a nest of vipers.........stick you hand in and you're gonna get bit ! Cameron and Sarkozy have had their fifteen minutes of it's time for the famous American war cry............'Lets get the hell outa here'
  9. Given recent history I thought the time for the west geting involved with the internal affairs in Arab countries had past.But here we are again and surprise,surprise things are not so simple as they first appeared.We are involved and have probably overstepped the mandate from the UN and have no idea at what point we can stand back and say job accomplished.We as a nation may be appalled at the goings on in other countries but surely history has taught us that little or no good ever come from poking our noses in.
  10. Magda

    Magda War Hero Book Reviewer

    If you're with me, why are you using the "I'm with Stupid" smiley?! :lol: :-D :confused1:

    Is this one of those "Who's with me?! *tumbleweed*" moments?

    I'd also like to add, on a more serious note, that not so long ago the rebels were in the streets chanting that they wanted to finish the job themselves... this could yet backfire on the West/Nato/the UN.
  11. Jack'll get used to it !
  12. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

  13. So sad that we see politicians of all persuassions and nationalities, dipping their toes into already muddied waters and selectively picking on countries they hope to profit from their involvement or non involvement in conflicts. All comes down to oil or mineral wealth. No such action against Mugabee.
  14. This comes from a country that in recent times has been responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of civilians; the hypocrisy of it sickens me and still no Arab war planes in action against Gaddafi forces!
  15. It's all about regime change, Finks, always has been.

  16. Aye yer richt there.

    This dispels and doubt that buffoons are running our country. Hague has said that Britain might accept Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi going into exile so that the ongoing crisis in the oil-rich country could be solved.
  17. I think what Hague was really meaning was the crisis could be solved if we can replace Ghadaffi (what is the correct spelling for his name) with a pro-western leader who can also be a despot but a pro-western despot.
  18. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    It will be interesting to learn what the CIA have been doing undercover, in support of the UN resolution, protecting civilians who don't support the rebels.

    Doubtless the defected Libyan foreign minister will tell us....
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2011
  19. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    There are nightmarish implications if other countries decide that the UN resolution to protect civilians applies to all civilians.

    Those civilians under threat from Gaddafi appear to be under the "protection" of the West, but to date no-one seems to be protecting civilians that do not support the rebels and may even be threatened by them because of a different political, religious, geographic or ethical background.

    Step forward Russia or China?
  20. I actually in principle think that intervention in Libya was the right move. At the start of the 'up-rising' you had a population that was demanding democracy and a Lunatic dictator that was willing to turn the military on them for doing so. I think the sad truth is that action wasn't taken soon enough and the momentum which might have led to a popular uprising in Tripoli was quelled by Gaddafi.

    I'm not sure if it counts as being ironic that the reason there was such a delay was obviously related to the bloody mess which was made with Iraq. An intervention that was laid on poor grounds and mis-information, but given huge backing. Yet in Libya we have a call for democracy (something America claims to truly believe in, promote and staunchly defend) and yet all we get is hesitation.

    It does seem to me that the rebels do need to realise that it isn't going to be quick and glorious victory anymore and that they need to start organising and training for a civil war.

    I also agree that now we have resolution 1973 we need to stick to it. Preventing civilian casualties does not interpret into backing the rebels.

    Just my two pence

Share This Page