The House held a very good debate on Libya last Friday. The main problem we had was the number of speakers – not itself a problem but it meant we were limited to a maximum of 7 minutes.
I focusses my comments on the need for intervention and the problem of post conflict policy. You can read it here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110401-0001.htm#11040186000471
And was the quality of that debate in any way impaired by the brevity of individual contributions???
A propos (“)the brevity of democratic speaking(“)
is the noble company aware that the individual-subject in Britain ‘egalitarian-democratically’ would be allowed only 2 seconds of clock time in every five years to voice his/her needs ?
If so how is that to be reasoned and justified ?
If not, how explained ?
—–
0329M04Apr11.JSDM.
Your link not coded correctly, text of it works fine.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110401-0001.htm#11040186000471
I agree with the vast amount of your speech though I have some worries about boots on the ground. Not that we don’t have any at present, the very public capture of diplomats with SAS was very good smoke but I do not believe for one moment it was either not meant to happen or it was all.
The Libyan National Council has asked for weapons it has not asked for military intervention in terms of troops on the ground, infact the opposite. They are willing to die for their freedom and that of the people taken in by Gaddafi’s propaganda. If we are to help it must be on their terms, we should not take over the war for them.
I have no doubts it was correct to intervene as we did, it could have been sooner in mind,and although the CIA are starting to put some panic in people by attempting to say Al-Qaida may take over I do not believe one word of it. As the noble Lord stated I believe this a fight for democracy, freedom and human rights and we should do all we can to help.
Lord Anderson:
Although it is in the interests of the country, of world peace generally, and certainly of regional peace, that Gaddafi no longer be there-it is impossible to conceive of a pluralist democracy under
the rule of law if Gaddafi remains in place-it would be wholly wrong to seek to remove him by force and have regime change. The carefully constructed coalition would evaporate if regime change was made a clear aim. We have to be extremely careful. It is in our interest to remain four-square within international law.
Worth reiterating and proceeding upon.
Baroness Falkner mentions Nasser’s dream of Pan Arabism, but does not make it clear whether Nasser’s dream lives or not.
There is surely no doubt that the “Arab Nation” does live?
More later.
I think it will never be possible to compete and “have a good debate” in the House without first ensuring exhaustive cooperative-discussion from every level of the People.
1822Sn03Apr11.JSDM.
“Gaddafi no longer be there-it is impossible to conceive of a pluralist democracy under
the rule of law if Gaddafi remains in place-it would be wholly wrong to seek to remove him by force”
If you do not use the rule of law (UN Resolution)to oust him, then how can pluralist democracy imposed by you, be of any value?
The least time that was done in Iraq, where the resolution was broken, it was retrospectively made law by the UN……
So it is of value?
I don’t believe for one minute the war machine didn’t know it was planning to set up this situation we now see in Libya.
They moved too quickly and too eagerly into a decision of ‘saving the people’ mode, which in humanitarian matters, they never, ever do.
All you have to watch is the action taken when their is a natural human disaster and how long it takes them to even decide they are going to assist. Yet, with this, they were up and running in less than a week. So they tell us. What total nonsense.
This was a matter that had been discussed for some time and the move they wanted to make considered long before action. For whatever reason, the last thought would have been humanitarian. Why the Libyans and not the rest of the world? Are Libyans the chosen people or something? Or, is there a vast well off oil and gas waiting for the plunder?
The price of oil has gone through the roof. There is money to be made and this is where it’s at. This was no accident. The US had the CIA there weeks ago. And our SAS followed to plan.
Once again, the British tax payer is being used as a milking cow for war games. Our own people take second place. Or, are second class citizens in the queue for assistance. Oh no, their money is not to be used for their humanitarian needs, who do they think they are? ‘They want to live high on the hog, like us, the pendulum swung too far the other way. They can afford to keep dogs and that is way beyond their station in life.’
But, then, I am a cynic and I have little faith in the propaganda pushed at us as if we are mindless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmhuN7hrmv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDFFJ-iXQGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLeZehM0Rs
Who are these rebels? What is it they see as their aims in Libya? What is their attitude to the West? And who is doing the running with these people? As importantly, when did these go betweens meet these rebels and make the decision to back their rebellion?
So much of this is covert and doesn’t make sense on the world stage.
Millions of immigrants are now descending on Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsV61cDdZh4
Maudes’ comments again appropriate, but the international consensus may be so much greater against Ghaddaffi than it was ,for example, against Saddam (note the first name term), that they have been looking for any chance for a very long time.
The Lockerbie bomb relatives’lobby is very vociferous especially after Megrebi’s release.
Itchin’ for the UN to sign a resolution against Ghaddaffi, and get on with the show.
It is not about renewing oil PSa agreements (Production sharing agreements)in any way but the effect on raising the petrol prices is the same.
@Gareth: Yes, but if the ‘get Ghaddafi’ lobby was as powerful as you suggest, Obama would have run with this like the wind. He wants election kudos and that, if popular, would have given him a great deal.
No, he is hiding from the American aspect, which means he doesn’t believe it will be greatly welcomed across the board. And being a smart man, he knows it will end in a wash out, like the rest have.
And only today we are told it will take six more months. Oh, yes, and some!
Matt. I think 4 minutes is too short. There were things that were left out by a number of speakers.
Carl H. sorry about the link.