1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Why Libya and not Iraq?

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by Freddie92, Mar 22, 2011.

  1. Freddie92

    Freddie92 Occasional commenter

    I was just thinking about this earlier that when the Allies went to war in Iraq all hell broke loose. Yet for 12 years Saddam Hussein had been violating UN resolutions. Also he was a threat to external nations beyond his own borders. Yet here we have a civil war in Libya and Cameron and Sarkozy (a man in need of a diversion a bit like Berlusconi) can't wait to get us involved yet there is not an outcry. There has not been an anti war march yet either to my knowledge. I am appalled. Our involvement in Libya - if there has to be one - should be to enforce a No Fly Zone and that is all. No attacking ground troops, armour or material. Also how can we afford a war if we are in so much debt? And before people start on morality, if we are to be a moral society then why are the rich not taxed more to pay for schools and hospitals to aid the poor?
  2. catmother

    catmother Star commenter

    Indeed. I had to buy A4 paper for my classes to do their work on,as the department is not allowed to buy anything until end of month. However,apparently we can afford another war!

  3. <font face="Calibri">I suppose the backing of the UN and Arab League is the key difference &ndash; though neither are paragons of democratic virtue. </font>
  4. Two thoughts
    1)The states attacking the Libyan state and supporting the armed rebellion are fully supportive of the governments and armed forces of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen in using armed force to put down unarmed protest demonstrations. There's no inconsistency in their actions. They have to maintain their interests in the region, which are threatened by the Arab revolutions.
    2)It costs &pound;800,000 for one Missile fired from a British Warplane.It costs &pound;35,000/hour to fly a Typhoon.&pound;1 million for a Tomahawk Cruise Missile.
    And they tell us there's no money.
  5. <font face="Calibri">Fully supportive is perhaps too strong a term. But yes, of course realpolitik is involved . However, we should try to do good where we can. If we were perfectly consistent, then there would either be a lot more brutality in the world &ndash; Benghazi would be burning for a start &ndash; or we would be at war with China. It&rsquo;s a bit like discipline in the classroom &ndash; not a perfect analogy, but we pick our battles carefully and never back ourselves into a situation that we can&rsquo;t win or would drive us mad to enforce &ndash; at the same time , we can&rsquo;t have chaos in our classroom.</font><font face="Calibri">The &lsquo;Libyan state&rsquo; is a vile family owned crime business which is notorious in an area where there&rsquo;s a lot of competition. Gadhafi himself came to power in a bloodthirsty coup. Interesting how pro western despots Ben Ali and Mubarak departed from the scene with (comparatively) little bloodshed but the one which we are accused of having the hypocrisy to single out for unfair treatment pledges to go from house to house showing no mercy to his own citizens. What has gone on in Libya is no way comparable to Bahrain or anywhere else. Protestors were being met by tanks , airpower and heavy weaponry, hundreds perhaps thousands were being killed, and there was a full blown state of civil war. </font>
  6. cobalt54

    cobalt54 New commenter

    I cant say I've noticed any vibrant left wing media in the UK. There's the Morning Star which sells a few thousand a day and The Guardian which sells a few million and that's about it. The canard of the BBC being a seething nest of socialists is used to soften up the public for the day when it ceases to be funded by the licence fee. That particular campaign is loudly trumpeted by the Murdoch press unsurprisingly. The BBC lost its nerve some time ago and the removal of Alisdair Milne was a turning point.
    Regarding Libya I think it would have made a great deal more sense to adopt the rather sleazy Blair doctrine of cosying up to Gaddafi and getting oil at a reasonable price. Shooting protesters is hardly unique to Libya after all, which is what I think puzzled the original writer on this thread. But the opportunity exists, due to internal strife, to take control of the Libyan oil fields and it was obviously felt in the USA, UK and France in particular that this was too good an opportunity to pass up.
    The weapons used in modern warfare cost astronomical amounts of money and are hardly going to be used for the purpose of defending Libyan protesters about whom the UK, along with the rest of the world, cares little. Certainly not enough to spend billions of pounds during a massive recession. However if the end result is control of Libyan oil fields then the cost in ordnance will prove to have been a very good investment.
  7. <font face="Calibri">Discounting fringe Marxist publications, I believe there is most certainly a soft left tendency within the BBC. Andrew Marr himself has spoken of the BBC&rsquo;s &lsquo;cultural liberal bias&rsquo;. Witness the reporting on the Israel &ndash; Palestine conflict, the reference to Taliban &lsquo;militant &rsquo; suicide bombers (who become genuine &lsquo;terrorists&rsquo; only when bombing London) , the stories of champagne bottles being cracked open when Labour came to power in 1997, James Naughtie&rsquo;s slip when he described Labour as &lsquo;we&rsquo;, the correspondents in Cairo falling over themselves to describe the Muslim Brotherhood as a &lsquo;moderate&rsquo; group, the Question Time audiences who invariably applaud any criticism of America, Tories etc etc. In any case, I have no problem with not having to pay a compulsory charge to state broadcasting for the privilege of owning a TV set&hellip;very 1950s East Bloc. Regarding control of oil, this will only fall into the hands of the &lsquo;invaders&rsquo; if there is actually an invasion, which is most unlikely. Tornado GR4s can&rsquo;t secure oil from 10,000 feet. And if the West saw this as too good an opportunity to pass up, it&rsquo;s strange how Obama really wanted nothing to do with this and the other two prime movers, Cameron and Sarkozy, respectively displayed scepticism and downright opposition to the Iraq war, which we are also told was all about oil.</font><font face="Calibri"></font>
  8. cobalt54

    cobalt54 New commenter

    I would have thought that a liberal bias is exactly the position that a national broadcaster should aim to adopt. What would be more acceptable? Illiberal bias? The fact that the word 'liberal' has become a casual term of abuse amongst right wingers in the USA should not blind us to its actual meaning.
    I remember the late Johnny Speight satirising objections to paying the TV licvence through his comic creation Alf Garnett: " I dont watch yer ponsy BBC! I watch yer free TV, yer ITV!" Speight was one of a plethora of talented writers effectively subsidised through the licence fee. Not eastern bloc but actually very British, Beveridge Report, one nation, welfare capitalist.
    Cameron's reticence over Iraq was mere political posturing as his recent actions have shown. No one can surely doubt he would have followed the US lead the same as Blair did. Anymore than Milliband if in power would be imposing the same sorts of cuts in public expenditure he now professes to oppose.
    As for Libya no you cant control oil from the air. But you can aim to remove Gaddafi from power by such means and help install a pro-western leader who will open the doors to US, UK and French oil companies. That I imagine is the plan. However I doubt that it will work for I do not think Gaddafi is going anywhere and this is what the military generals of the coalition recognised when their political leaders were becoming excited at the prospect of Gaddafi hanging from a lamppost. If Gaddafi survives, as he may well do, then the coalition will be reduced to flying sorties over the areas under his control and bombing them as they did in Iraq for close on 10 years. A total stalemate which will impoverish the very Libyan people they are claiming to support.
    The only alternative to this is is putting in troops. Which may well happen.
  9. <font face="Calibri">Well, we&rsquo;ll see what happens with regard to an invasion. In think we&rsquo;ll have to agree to disagree.</font><font face="Calibri">Regarding the BBC, I think Andrew Marr and everyone else knows that he was referring to liberalism in its modern context &ndash; social democratic, politically correct, socially permissive, soft left &ndash; rather than the Gladstone or Mill variety. As for it becoming a term of abuse in the US, we in the UK - where the word &lsquo;Tory&rsquo; has acquired a similar pejorative meaning in &lsquo;Tory scum&rsquo;, &lsquo;Tory cuts, &lsquo;Tory wreckers&rsquo; - cannot be quite so smug. Personally , I feel uncomfortable with any kind of bias in national broadcasting: particularly one which I pay money to. I think is actually part of the problem. The BBC think that there is nothing wrong with articulating metropolitan liberal values: that they are the values of everyone. The only problem is that millions of licence fee paying British people outwith London, for better or worse, have rather different conservative values. They are concerned about crime and immigration, and are suspicious of the EU and political correctness. Which is why the license fee is becoming increasingly unpopular.</font>
  10. I just can't see where you got the idea that the BBC is left wing.It's an oft repeated myth.
    The BBC presenter Andrew Neil,delivered the 14th annual Hayek lecture at the Institute of Economic Affairs, in which he called for;
    "a reorientation of British foreign policy away from Europe . . . a radical programme to liberalise the British economy; a radical reduction in tax and public spending as a share of the economy; a flat tax . . . the injection of choice and competition into the public sector on a scale not yet contemplated . . . excellence in schools with vouchers for all".
    Nick Robinson was chair of the Young Conservatives, in the mid-1980s, at the height of Thatcherism.
    Guto Harri became communications director for Boris Johnson within months of resigning from the BBC.
    Jeff Randall free marketeer and "Daily Telegraph" Editor at large - four-year stint as the corporation's first business editor.
    The BBC is constantly accused of anti-Americanism, but three of its most recent correspondents in Washington - Gavin Esler, Matt Frei and Justin Webb - have all since written books documenting their great love and admiration for the United States.
    Michael Gove worked on BBC'S "Today Programme" and "On the Record"
    This is rather more substantial evidence than an apparent off the cuff remark by james Naughtie.


Share This Page