The BBC have been vigorous in determining that a NO FLY zone is not acceptable; A Biased BBC reader provides further insight;
“The No Fly Zone is ano go area for the BBC…they are against it as with all military actionhowever ‘justified’
Today we are told that a majority of Britains are also against a no fly zonebecause of our experiences with imposing unwanted (and illegal?) militarysolutions upon other countries which have been unsuccessful.
On Victoria Derbyshire (presented by Rachel Burden today, see link) this was the defaultBBC position. It was unfortunate that they hadn’t briefed their guest, a Libyandoctor, who told us his father, in Libya, had called for a NFZ 2 weeks ago,Libyans are still calling for a NFZ…when asked what do Libyans want hereplied they are demanding ‘Please can we have a No Fly Zone.’
Couldn’t be much clearer.
To us maybe…not to the BBC whose reporter jumped in to tell us that actuallythe American defence secretary Robert Gates doesn’t believe NFZ’s will besuccessful as it is attack helicopters that are the problem…it’s all verytechnical and can’t be rushed….these damned excitable Libyans who just don’tunderstand…surely they can put up with being bombed and shelled whilst we getmulti-lateral agreements at the UN and get some decisive paper shuffling doneto make clear our anger at unfolding events.
Yes I’m sure those underwater helicopters can avoid detection in a no fly zone! I’m not even going to contrast the reactions with those at the time of Israel’sassault on Hamas in 2009.”
The west dithers while people die, waiting for the Arab states to say that it is ok for us to install a NFZ.
Frankly that isn’t going to happen at all, all these Arab states are potentially in the same situation, long term dictatorships or one family rule, they see themselves in the Colonels position and if they actively say the west can set up a NFZ then surely they’re signalling to their own people that it’s time for change.
As horrific as it sounds the Libyan uprising was destined to failed, Tunisia & Egypt uprisings happened in the main city, the Libyan uprising happened 1,000km away. It’s going to be a horribly slow and painful power grab by the Colonel until he has his people oppressed again.
Unfortunately for the UK Hague has made some awful decisions internationally as he put all his money on the horse that was destined to fall at the first hurdle. This has serious implications for the UK & Libya relations.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Colonel doesn’t take back all the oilfields.
Yes, that looks like the realpolitik right now.
And Hague and Cameron will have greatly antagonised the continuing dictator Gaddafi, but in the wider Arab world they will be criticised for inaction.
The person with real potential clout here is Obama. Or rather – the President of the US has real clout. But this President is all at sea on foreign affairs, and spineless, and the actions of Hague and Cameron make it more likely that Obama’s disdain for Britain will increase.
Lose-lose.
David
The situation’s not unlike that scene from Life of Brian where the Judean Popular Front (or whoever) were finally stirred into action by the news that Brian was about to be crucified. They then spent the rest of the day debating the the wording of the proposed statement that they needed to issue urgently.
The posturing from Hague, Sarkozy, Cameron, Ashton et al serves to further the myth that the UK and France are keen to support the people of Libya against Ghadafi’s tyrannical rule, whilst delaying any actual intervention until long after Ghadafi has recovered full control of the country. After that has happened, no military action will be possible, so everyone can wring their hands and claim to have done all they could.
The BBC’s role is, as ever, to undermine the credibility of the Coalition’s stance whilst joining with them in the hand wringing bit.
They might be calling for our help now, but six months down the line should we provide it, they will regard us as the enemy. That is the mentality of the Arabs and their Islamic agenda.
Lets just keep out of it.
John Nichol, former RAF Navigator who was involved in enforcing the NFZ in Bosnia, also said on SKY this morning that NFZs are not effective against helicopters or, of course, ground troops.
I hate to agree with the BBC but he seems to know what he’s talking about.
Anyway, it looks like Zimbabwe is going to kick off again. Will Cameron call for action there as well? I watched a bit of Jamie’s Dream School last night but had to switch it off for my own wellbeing. I know it sounds trite but we have very serious domestic problems to sort out.
I had a similar experience whilst watching “Dream school” – lots of “it’s my yuman rights innit”, with a number of the “pupils” living comfortably in their own accomodation provided by el taxpayer (whilst the camera crew helpfully films lots of them drinking illegally in said flats).
I switch channels to see a programme in africa where the reporter is interviewing young girls as young as 13 so desperate to help their families they are becoming prostitutes. He even frees one of them from a life of prostitution by paying $38 for a can of fuel for her to take back to her village.
The contrast is puke inducing.
The BBC isn’t taking a position against a no-fly zone out of pragmatism based on factual knowledge: it’s ideological. They were all for it ten days ago or so until the US President got cold feet and started dithering. As soon as Cameron opened his mouth about it, they took up the opposing viewpoint. The other problem is that the Beeboids finally learned a couple days ago that enforcing a no-fly zone really inovlves going to war for a few days and bombing out Libya’s air defenses. They apparently had no idea that would be necessary until around Tuesday.
But why should this be any different than the Balkans? Leftoid Europe sat on its hands while tens of thousand of people were slaughtered, and hundreds of thousands more were rounded up for the possibility of the same fate. It took the US – a Democrat President, even – to do something, and we didn’t sit around waiting for the UN to bless us. If they all want more blood on their hands again this time, then the BBC will be again complicit.
If The Obamessiah ever finally gets comfortable making a decision to attack, the BBC will be all for it again.
While part of me would love to use military means to remove Gaddafi, another part recognises that we’ll get no thanks for it, be mired in another endless conflict and lose more servicemen’s lives. In order to land up with a different despotic bastard in charge.
Someone commented a week or so ago that the TODAY programme ran a piece bigging up a NFZ, predictably as a stick to beat Cameron with if he didn’t go along with it. He soon did, and now it appears they are bigging up anti-NFZ as a stick to beat Cameron with.
Aren’t you just overwhelmed at the compassion the BBC has for real people’s lives at stake? I’m sure Libyans facing Gaddafi’s bombs perfectly understand that it is more important to make propaganda against a Conservative led government than than deal with the merits of the issue in protecting civilian lives from a dictator.
Speaking for myself, of course, and having shook my head slowly after the decision to interfere with Iraq, and then Afghanistan, I think any interference in Libya would be foolish. Whatever the disadvantages of “mad” dictators, they do tend to keep a lid on things in their own regimes however distasteful the methods may seem to us in the west. We are hypocritical because we have vested interests, and have usually feted these despots at some time or other to our advantage as well as theirs, and often very publicly.
So I say leave well alone, don’t get involved, it may return to the status quo without our intervention. After all, you can’t blame Ghaddafi for desiring to wrest back control of ‘his’ country.
As others have already said, there are enough problems to sort out in the UK, and charity begins at home.
Besides, the devastating cuts have now rendered UK defence capabilities as critical, without the enforced need to deploy forces around the world to sort out their problems…
The real irony is that we did nothing after Ghadafi’s men shot WPC Yvonne Fletcher, supplied arms to the IRA and (so we are led to believe) blew up the Pan Am 747 in 1988.
The only real reason for intervening now would be if we were sure that the Ghadafi regime is now so weak that its collapse is inevitable.
On that basis, the threat of imposing NFZ or any other military involvement isn’t a particularly noble or heroic move!
To be honest I think this thing has damned if they do, damned if they don’t written all over it. Part of the problem is that Iraq & Afghanistan has created a nervousness because we see what happens when politicians start playing war & sending troops with a remit to only do half a job as opposed to letting them do what they do best. As a result we have dither over what happens in Libya because the politicians first thought is what people will think of them
The flip side for me however is what the Iranians will read into this. There is an interesting paper at the Jewish Centre for Public Affairs on negotiating with Iran:
Click to access iranian_behavior.pdf
If you don’t have chance to read it, it talks about how Iran reacts to strength and weakness in those it is dealing with. If they sense strength and intent then they back off, citing the release of the US hostages as Reagan took office, but more importantly how they capitalise on signs of weakness. This uprising when enable them to draw parallels on the response to their own internal difficulties.
But for the time being, the Beeb will continue to follow the “what’s critical of the government” question when deciding editorial policy because god forbid they should study this properly.
Yes – the strong-horse versus weak-horse situation.
The UK will probably end up looking like a weak horse, again.
OT
Meanwhile, the video-clip in this link shows why Israel still seems to be the only sane place in the Middle East :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028562.php
I do wonder if the No Fly Zone will come into being though. The rate at which military jets pass over my house on their way to a target range certainly seems to have increased in the last week or so.
Total disengagement from the Islamic world, Arab or otherwise, is the only hope for the West. It will have to come eventually but for the present it is oil alone that prevents this.
So no intervention in Libya is my preferred option. Any liberal or so called humanitarian considerations just cloud the issue.
Fortify Europe and try to cut as many ties as possible even reducing contact to a basic diplomatic level. Increase our defence spending at whatever cost to our easy life and prepare for the worst.
When the Islamic world gets over it’s problems, if ever, we can resume contact. Until then let it be.
The people of Libya are asking for help. Neither the Iraqis nor the Afghans nor the Mohammedans of Bosnia did that so publicly. If the US sits back and does nothing, any new regime will remember that. Don’t forget about the respect for the US that still exists amongst the Mohammedans of Kosovo. That doesn’t come cheap.
Arab League want us to provide Libya NFZ, so INBBC will do too!
Ah, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) may become more enthusiastic for a Libya No Fly Zone (NFZ), now that INBBC’s beloved Arab League is pushing for a NFZ.
So, we British people (and taxpayers) should apparently pay for British troops (at risk of their lives) to try to solve the problems of Gaddafi’s Islamic Libya? !
No, Arab League.
Get rich Islamic Saud family to do it.
“Why Doesn’t The Arab League, With Its Trillions Of Dollars, Enforce The No-Fly Zone Itself?”http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/33076
INBBC’s Arab League plea:
“Arab League backs Libya no-fly zone”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12723554
“Libya: Would Intervention be Practical or Even Desirable?”
Andrew McCarthy
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8954/pub_detail.asp
Get rich Islamic Saud family to do it.
Perhaps a military expert could confirm or deny this. My impression is that the Saudi airforce is a hugely expensive, gold-plated, undermanned, never been tested in battle, mish-mash of top-of-the-line incompatible systems.
It’s purpose is not self defence nor the extension of Saudi power but to provide a vehicle for trade deals with major supplying countries, thus ensuring that the Saudis are protected if attacked, physically, in world forums or even in Parliaments. If Bat Yeor is correct, hidden in the massive contracts are clauses ensuring Wahabi doctrines can be freely in the supplying countries.
The Saudis can’t do it themselves. Are they willing to pay for someone else?
It’s not even clear the Saudis want a NFZ because the message that the overthrow of dictators who don’t spread oil wealth might spread to Saudi Arabia’s own Shiites and foreign labour.
No, Arab League.
Who in the Arab League is capable of doing this? It seems Egypt is busy right now.
The Arab League can impose a NFZ, using Saudi planes and Turkish military air bases.
Saudi Arabia has a huge air force, and plenty of very cheap aviation fuel:
‘Royal Saudi Air Force’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force
Turkey has several military airfields which could be used.
Such an Arab League force would impose a NFZ with due regard for the Islamic sensibilities of its Muslim brothers in Libya.
And the E.U. and Britain should NOT open their doors to demands for immigration from Libya.