So were we right to assist?

[youngmafbog]

As Libya prepares for its first election do the anti war brigade (well represented on this site) now agree that we 'did the right thing' ?

Or would they have prefered to read about more Gaddafi slaughters jut so they could bask in their own self satisifaction?

[jackthehat]

The 'right thing was done' in that Libya has now been able to throw off the shackles imposed by Mad-dog Ghaddafi and will, hopefully, emerge as a more open and democratic country.

Whether 'we' did the right thing, or not, time will tell.

[Old_Geezer]

There is right and there is right. We never had approval to do more than clear the skies to protect the rebels. However we hope that the end will justify the means.

[FredPuli43]

Is there a pro-war brigade on this site or anywhere in Britain?

In Libya , we achieved the objective with minimal action. It was right for Gaddafi to be removed by the people. But there must be a practical limit to the number of repressive dictators that we, or anyone else, can remove by force of arms, mustn't there?

[LazyGun]

@ YoungMaf - Not sure why you think any of the "anti-war brigade" on this site, as you characterise them, would object very strongly to what was done in Libya.

Following reports of the slaughters of the Gaddafi regime, the UN passed several resolutions, condemning the actions of the regime and freezing their assets, as well as referrring Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court.

When Benghazi was threatened with heavy weaponry, the UN passed a "no- fly" resolution, and authorised the use of all necessary force to defend civilians.The UK, France and the US were all instrumental in enforcing the no fly zone. and then maintaining it. So, limited military intervention, sanctioned by the UN, supported by Libyans and the Arab League, for a humanitarian cause - I think you need to stop conflating all anti-war protesters and resolute pacifists, steadfastly opposed to any sort of military response.

All of this action represented limited military intervention by the UK and others, and was both justified and affordable, both in terms of logistics and economics.

So, it wasnt a war, nor did we commit to boots on the ground (although there were probably special forces and advisers)- why do you imagine anyone here would object, or "bask in their own self-satisfaction", as you so poetically put it?

[anotheoldgit]

What should be done regarding Syria one asks?

Should we send our forces out there also YMB?

[Gromit]

We did the right thing?

I think you will find the Libyan people did the right thing. We stayed out of that one. Gadafi was our ally and we chose rightly not to support him.

[Gromit]

If only the Syrian people could discover large quantities of oil under their land and then we might "do the right thing" for them also.

[Gromit]

The rebels were armed by the French. Well done France.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// If only the Syrian people could discover large quantities of oil under their land and then we might "do the right thing" for them also. ///

Not that old oil 'chestnut' again?

/// Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels (400,000,000 m3) of petroleum reserves as of January 1, 2010. ///

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// I think you will find the Libyan people did the right thing. We stayed out of that one. ///

Ask the RAF, the Navy and Special Forces about that one Gromit.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, aog, Syria has oil but not nearly enough. Syria is expected to be a net importer of oil within ten years. Your 'old chestnut' is that countries get invaded or regimes changed for the oil. Not worth invading or changing the regime of a country that's soon to be importing oil, is it ? (The more so, if it's fully armed with modern weaponry!}

[emmie]

No, we shouldn't have interfered.

[emmie]

Libya isn't more open and heading for democracy, perhaps it is good that Gaddafi is gone, but it's not a more settled land because of it.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// Your 'old chestnut' is that countries get invaded or regimes changed for the oil. ///

That is not by any means 'My Old Chestnut' but one that is regularly used by those seeking opposition to our various overseas policies.

[pdq1]

Somebody suggested that Haigh must be on his 14 pints a night bender to even consider sending our troops into Syria. He seems to be a small man carrying a big stick.

[jake-the-peg]

No we really shot ourselves in the foot.

We had a brief to protect civillians

We interpreted that as a green light to do whatever we wanted from the air.

Directly striking Gaddafi's forces and command and control sites.

We abused the trust of the Arab league

It's a prime example of why we should stay out of these things

[emmie]

we should stay out of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, and so on. We have no business getting involved. If they ask for help, tough.

[Brenden]

Watch for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya -

[emmie]

Brenden, just what i have been wondering.

[FredPuli43]

It's "your" 'old chestnut' because you cited it in quotation marks, not because it represents your opinion, aog. I knew it was not your opinion. The clue was in your words "Not that 'old chestnut' again"..