starting this thread, which i hope will be short-lived, to keep the board up to date with latest reports gleaned from the net

Cynic,

Did you lose your round of golf?

in such situations, the general population cannot be classified as goodies or baddies - it is more the actual or perceived persona and actions of the string-pullers ...... in this instance MG with no doubt the interference (help!) likes of iran and similar whose aim is to stir the pot vigorously and cause as much regional instability as possible

it is precisely because britain recognises that it is no longer the world's policeman, nor any other individual member of NATO (bar 3) that they have banded together to form a stronger entity ..... ineffectual as NATO often frustratingly is, its actions (when taken!) are at least intended for the good of the vast majority of nations

does NATO always get it right? ... of course not, not least because ripple-effect reactions to actions are not entirely predictable

to reiterate the obvious, it is only the likes of you and friend fred who insist on pretending that britain is attempting to act on its own in this situation ..... if britain is trying and arguably succeeding to be a leading team guide in libya, then i am very pleased and proud that that is so ..... i suppose you would rather britain stood on the sidelines wringing its hands but doing nothing at all - and you and fred then complaining about pathetic and lily-livered inaction

no fred .... we had a cracking day at The Berkshire .... won1; lost 1, though overall our "mob" lost in this annuat fixture .... exceedingly good lunch of course!

Did you go on your bike, wearing those sexy shorts.

now that the arctic weather is behind us, i'm sure i'll be able to grace these pages yet again - if someone would kindly teach me how to get pix from my pc folder onto here

click on image at the top of the box, right here.

it asks for an image url or similar, but dinosaur that i am, i don't think that applies to an image (personal pic) saved in my pc folder .... hmm! think i'll need to have a little play but no time for now, but thanks

Mr.C happy to do so for a main member.

At the bottom of the page under add to post, click far right icon (insert an image)
in the highlighted box insert address, ie http://l1.yimg.com/i/i/uk/metro/nigel2.jpg
click OK.

Your picture must be in something like photobucket or on the net. Hope this helps you.

Cynic,

The thought of your pix on this thread is not appealing.

====

I think you are misrepresenting my position on interference in Libya.

However, I think Cameron and Sarkosy were inflaming the Libyan situation by strutting across the World Stage for hoped for internal political advantage.

They did not have "reasonable" information of the likely results of intervention, or comprehended and the limitation of "no fly zone".

They had no comprehensive international support for their actions.

They had not thought to the consequences of the their attempts at intimidating Gaddafi

Basically they were superficial and naive. (I think Hague was more reticent on action than Cameron and to a certain degree Obama push into action with limitation on ongoing support.)

Sarkosy, Cameron and Osborne may be politically tactically smart, but they are strategically naive.

The surprise for me is that, so far, Cameron hasn't blamed the previous government for his seeming failure of his Libyan policy.

------------------

If they had have been more astute, relevant governments would have been considering possible outcomes of the "revolution" in Tunisia and thought about possible future actions and command structures etc.. Also trying to see what fellow states would support as actions. (Consequences.)
I think the Libyan intervention by NATO shows the weaknesses in this organisation. The main problem is that NATO does not have political unity of those financing it.

The strength and weakness of NATO is based on the USA, which I think will gradually reduce its commitments to the organisation.

It is necessary to have more political unity in Europe and unification of the military force financed by Europe and with a European command structure in place, which is subject to an "united" European government.

I will not go into the objectives of the Military forces.

But we are witnessing the financial consequences of military involvements and the limitations of independent actions of minor nations.

==========

As said before, I think for the "Libyan Adventure" to be ended "successfully" it will need external "foot soldiers" on Libyan soil.

If this had been accepted initially and carried out "swiftly" and the consequences of such action accepted, with or without UN approval then this present debacle may now be over.

Bernard M - More Nigella please!!! Even dressed in that get up, even tastier than her recipes :O)

bernard - no, my pix are my own and nothing to do with the internet .... i know they can be downloaded here, as Mistress T obliged for me a couple of years back, but i'm too stupid to know how

fred - i fundamentally disagree with your argument, not least because it starts from an incorrect premise - i.e. that in this instance, britain and france "forced" nato and indeed AL to follow their proposition ...... and yes, i know you cannot accept that either, but no matter - at least there is a lack of personal abuse that pervades and indeed dominates elsewhere!


PS - i'm afraid i had the disillusionment of seeing nigella in the flesh a few months ago - thank goodness she had clothes on

Sorry cc she does nothing for me.

Is that last conclusion from introspection.

Cynic,

"forced"

try "coerced" but avoided direct responsibility for action and interested to be just observing,

I wonder why and shouldn't their response be anticipated and considered.

International naivety as suggested by many former middle east "ambassadors".

and believe me, without the professionally applied make-over, she lacks a certain je sais exactement


fred - my english is lacking for i was under the impression that forced and coerced were synonymous ..... further, you switch like an angry rattlesnake, for in one breath you say "act precipitately" (or somesuch) and in the next it's "sit on the sidelines" ..... no doubt i haven't read your posts properly, but those are certainly the distinct impressions that regularly emerge - but then you'ld like to have marxist milliband wriggling in the hotseat

We were right to go to war against sadman insane (no, I don't mean the parrot) when he invaded Kuwait. we did a good thing then.
However, the Arab world is riven by sectarian, religious and tribal divisions and internecine wars and I don't think we should involve ourselves militarily in any of their countries. Humanitarian assistance is different, taking sides in disputes even the participants don't fully understand is foolhardy, in my view.
The Nordic nations, Germany and others in Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) manage perfectly well without such military adventures or interventions and a third rate power like us should stop trying to pretend we are a world power throwing our weight around.
You can call me naive or incredibly stupid if you wish, cynic, that's of no consequence. We have different opinions but let's not fall into the sticky world of parrot's nappies.
You might be right and I wrong, I might be right and you wrong, different views are healthy and no-one is infallible.

slapped wrist deserved ITLOB ......

i'm sure the nordic nations and others do get regularly involved with policing, and if they do not (perhaps here), it could be argued that they are being spineless .... quite where humanitarian ends and military intervention starts is very blurred, and of course politicians of all colours and callings will manipulate such words to suit

"The Nordic nations, Germany and others in Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) manage perfectly well without such military adventures or interventions....."

I think you will find a number of your 'Nordic nations......' are engaging in military adventures in Afghanistan, plus the rest of the world.

Yes, they do get involved in very minor ways, but the actual ground fighting, the suffering of casualties is borne mainly, though not exclusively, by the US and the UK.
It's interesting that the old economic and strategic reasons for foreign adventures, are being replaced by allegedly humanitarian ones; though of course access to oil and other commodities remain strong motivators. Nevertheless, other countries get what they need without the requirement for military force.
Or maybe we all live under the American umbrella and the UK just pretends to matter.

First you say they don't, then you agree they do but don't take casualties.

I think you'll find they do take casualties.