Interesting interview with Liam Fox on Today at 7.49am. The item under discussion was no fly zones above Libya and the BBC were advancing their usual agenda. 1. The mighty UN must give permission otherwise any action would be illegal. (hint hint) 2. Even if there was to be a no fly zone, it must be for “humanitarian purposes” – heaven forbid that there would be military objectives. 3. There could be no attack on Libyan Air Defence capabilities since that would be..erm…war-like. The BBC is a primary advocate for supplication to the corrupt degenerate United Nations and in this situation it shows how the only form of action against the thug Ghadaffi is…inaction. But lots of pious words, of course.
BOW DOWN TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Bookmark the permalink.
While I would dearly love to see the back of the loathsome Gadaffi, it’s not up to us to sort it out. The West has not been wanted in the past and if the countries in that region want something done they can do it themselves.
If it’s security of oil supply we’re worried about, there’s a strong argument for keeping the devil we know in power there.
After what Cameron started coming out with about ‘no-fly zones’ at the cue of the BBC it now very much is in our interests that Gaddafi doesn’t hold on to power.
Gaddafi was and might be again, the devil you know. Short of invading and directly controlling a threat, all that can be done is ‘sup with the long spoon.’
Who on Gd’s good earth could care about Gaddafi personally but, the big but, what will emerge. For sure it won’t fit the BBC liberal narrative.
Any, but any intervention, will be met with an instant howl of disapproval from the Atlas to the Hindu Kush. Therefore, it is a non-starter.
That is why Chomsky is sort of for a no-fly zone. It will never happen.
But the damned if you do, damned if you don’t gives bags of propaganda points for the liberals.
With no idea of what is involved with a no-fly zone, they will say:
If Gaddafi survives……………………..you didn’t act.
If Gaddafi succumbs……………….you used excessive force and this alienated those who we were ‘morally’ obliged to support….bombing weddings etc.
Whoever emerges in Libya, one thing is sure. They will want to get that oil on the market. And the world will buy.
And the liberals (inc BBC) will disapprove.
Crocodile tears.
The ‘fun’ (a bit of schadenfreude) would be an Arab league no-fly operation run by Egypt and Turkey.
Turkey has the second largest Air capability in NATO and an inter-continental capacity.
Turkey is a mere 300 miles from Benghazi.
Forgive my flight of fantasy!
I wonder if the BBC will still support Gaddafi now that some Beeboids have been roughed up ?
BBC support Gaddafi? You are twisted. The lot of you are. Completely bonkers. The story to which these comments are replying is complete fantasy, absolute tragic sad stuff. These comments are sad. You all need psychiatric care.
Some classic humbug from Naughtie when he said something close to: ‘We have all found out in the recent past the importance of making sure any action is legal by going through the United Nations’.
No, what we found out is that when it is a war that TODAY and the media left oppose they’ll push the absolute humbug that any war prosecuted without UN sanction is ‘illegal’.
When the TODAY programme mounted a propaganda campaign to bomb Serbia on behalf of the Al Qa’eda linked Kosovo Liberation Army we didn’t hear a dickey bird about having to get UN approval.
I guess we should be thankful that the TODAY programme is not yet so up itself that it doesn’t say Governments have to seek TODAY programme approval. Well, at least they dont say it, but they sho’ as heck think it!
Someone posted a week or so ago about TODAY talking up a no-fly zone before Cameron had even broached it. Would be interesting to get the recording of that discussion.
I did not hear the programme but the scenario you describe sounds like typical muddled liberal thinking. A no fly zone is an act of war as it can only be enforced militarily. There is no such thing as a humanitarian no fly zone. Typical liberal non thinking. As for UN approval . it makes no difference. It is still an act of war.
Which of course is how Gaddafi will view it and, I suspect, so will much of the Arab world.
‘A humanitarian no-fly zone’ is one soley to protect civilians from attack.
Yes, hippie, but in order to create a no-fly zone, one must first bomb the crap out of artillery placements and air force bases. That’s war.
You could argue that that’s not what happened in Iraqi Kurdistan, although the Iraqi Air Force had been ‘pacified’ in the immediately preceding Gulf War I. That said, there did remain an arial threat from Saddam, but it wasn’t removed to establish the no-fly zone.
In his interview with Fox, Naughtie raised the point made by Robert Gates that you make, but Fox diplomatically elided over this with ‘there are other options’.
Naughtie, it seemed to me, made some feeble attempt to create controversy, but didn’t make too much of it.
This said, despite Saddam’s greatly reduced aerial ability he still did pose some potential threat. My money is that if a no-fly zone was imposed on Libya for humanitarian purposes, Gaddafi wouldn’t want to tangle with ‘NATO forces’ – ie 90% US material and a few face saving ‘add ons’ from her allies.
I like how we only need on UN resolution this time, and so many on the Left are demanding invasion and regime change, whereas two wasn’t enough for Iraq and the usual suspects are still whining about it having been illegal.
No blood for oil….sometimes.
The BBC is now actually mentioning that going to war against Ghaddafi to impose a “humanitarian” no-fly zone is kinda sorta problematic, given all the past whining about Iraq and Afghanistan.
It sounds like it might be a moment worthy of reflection, and discussion of why everyone is acting so hypocritically. But, alas, not for the Beeboids. No, the simple solution for them is to have on a serious of talking heads who call for this new war for oil so long as they preface it with an acknowledgment that “Iraq was a bad idea”. No further explanation required. Just say, “Iraq was bad but…” and anything goes.
Pretty damn cool. I love it when the US gets to bomb the crap out of Muslim dictators we don’t like and the world goes along with it. The BBC and the UN and the anti-war crowd are full of useful hypocrites.
Hah, BBC so desparate to attack William Hague and the Conservative-led Coalition over the recent screwed up SAS mission that Stage Performer Maitlis just now asked him if that failed mission would make it harder for the British Government to negotiate with the new opposition group.
Which makes no sense whatsoever, considering the mission was supposed to help meet with them. The Beeboids don’t even think about whaty they’re saying any more.