More nuttiness....Much more of this and there will be an activist campaign to tax the levels.

Britain's part in 2011 intervention in Libya was to be apart of a 10 country NATO-led coalition, later expanding to 19, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

The U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force in Libya stated, the goal of intervention was 'to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.' This was achieved.

Gaddafi’s forces were marching toward Benghazi and a massive massacre was about to occur. This is why we bombed Libya. Gaddafi's intention was clear. He called protesters 'cockroaches' and vowed to cleanse Libya 'inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway.' The Libyan people on the ground ultimately overthrew Gaddafi not us.

The Libya intervention has been used to present any foreign military intervention as a failure. The logic being that unless the country affected quickly becomes a stable, democratic country that the intervention must be viewed as a failure. Even when these interventions are not built upon the notion of nation building. These people don't of course think about what Libya would look like today if Nato hadn't intervened.

I think this type of thinking sees the world in a very short sighted and simplistic, 'good or bad', 'black and white' way. It fails to consider what the alternatives actually were. It's ignorance.

Terrorists give many justifications for what they do. You aren't going to stop attacks by appeasing these justifications. As IS have said themselves, they will attack us whatever we do.

Many of the far left apparently think that you can talk....the 'hug a jihadi' line. It confirms and promotes the contempt that many of them have for the weak western mind.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jun 2017 12.32pm)

Of course I don't think it justified.

Yes it does.

Lets break it down into a more digestible idea.

If you save your next door neighbour from the axe murderer then you make an enemy of the axe murderer.

It doesn't mean you were wrong to stop the axe murderer.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jun 2017 1.10pm)

The actual difference between yourself and Steeleye, old chap, might be that he actually thinks and you don't

Well I completely disagree with your view of foreign policy. I think your ideas are terrible. There are countless families in Benghazi who would be dead if your ideas were followed. Many massacres have happened, even in the recent past, due to UN non intervention or delay. Intervention does not always mean nation building.

I have some sympathy for your view of arm sales but essentially you are voting to sack people. No one buys military weapons under the idea that they can't use them or the idea that they have to meet the approval of the supplier.

Those weapons will be purchased either way.

Attacks from terrorists groups will happen either way.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jun 2017 1.52pm)