« Tony Blair defends the role of religion in global affairs in a debate with atheist columnist Christopher Hitchens | Main | Tony Blair: Europe will lose influence unless European countries work more closely together »

March 11, 2011



Good to see Sir John Major giving his usual calm analysis of World events. He was absolutely right about what should be done regarding Iraq before Tony Blair embarked on war lets hope that he is right now.

John Prendergast

JohnMajor instogated one of the biggest defence cuts- Options for Change. our services never recovered from this set of many manly Tory cuts . Since then we have won no campaigns just lost tem, increasingly embarassingly. Sit John wasm wrong on EU and EMU, wrong on Defenmce and just plainwrong for the country. It has taken a vast amount of leg wpork to over come his legacy. It was not Maggie's legacy we had to over come.

I also cannot forgive Sir John for having low grade female distraction when he shouldhave been on his day time job.

Roderick Louis


The UK could re-deploy its air and land-based military resources from Afghanistan to Libya- IE: from a country where there is very little expressed support for democracy and human rights-based rule-of-law to a country where the majority of its people are attempting to set up a universal-suffrage, democratic, human-rights-based rule-of-law state...

Libya's 'second city', freedom fighter controlled Benghazi, needs to be fortified with competent, well trained professionals to bolster defences manned by the largely untrained, 'volunteer'
freedom fighters...

Farther west, Libya's freedom fighters need to retain foot-holds, to be kept in place until an offensive against the Gaddafi regime can be launched.

France and the UK could productively deploy their land, sea and air assets to assist Libya's freedom fighters retaining and fortifying cities and ports such as Ras Lanuf and Misrata...

The negative consequences down the road for the comfortable west for not deploying air- and if required: land-based military assets in Libya threaten to be be many times worse than intervening...

Waiting for the the UN Security Council to provide its endorsement of international/NATO intervention in Libya is in many ways like asking a business-license office in Zimbabwe to make a decision on issuing a business license based upon objectively-applied laws and policies: it doesn't happen!

Considering the extreme urgency of the worsening Libya situation and the dire consequences for Libya's freedom fighters and the west of the US, UK, France and allies not intervening militarily... the U.N. and its dysfunctional processes ought to be ignored...

Mr. Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Roderick Louis

Libya's commendable freedom fighters should not expect assistance from other middle eastern and North African countries!!

NATO and EU member countries are setting up a self-defeating proposal if a condition for NATO/EU member countries' intervening militarily in Libya is participation in such an operation by Libya's region's other countries...


Libya's freedom fighters unequivocally expressed objectives are to live under human rights-based, rule of law democratic governance rather than continuing to live under a despotic dictatorship...

The region's countries with the biggest, best equipped militaries- such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt- have zero histories of functioning under human rights-based, rule of law democratic governance, and for decades have been dictatorships in which appalling human rights abuses were regular occurrences...

Why would Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's rulers (IE King Faud and military) support people in other countries who are attempting to set up governance models that they have uncontradicted, appalling histories of opposing, and occasionally- violently oppressing??

Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Roderick Louis

Peaceful protests and political activism are laudable, societally-constructive tactics and ought to always be the first strategy utilized by persons or groups of persons attempting to bring about positive change of political, legal or bureaucratic structures...

But when 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons (in this case, Libya's 'freedom fighters') are responded to with brutal, unnecessary violence- if the protesters have success as their objective- violence must be met with types of tactics that can win: even if this means using military measures...

When 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons- whose objectives are reasonable and constructive (in this case, Libya's brave, commendable freedom fighters)- are responded to with brutal, unconscionable violence, those that have the ability to intervene- and that are being asked to intervene by (in this case) Libya's freedom fighters- but choose to stand by and do nothing, invite Libya's abusive-to-human-rights despotic, dictatorship model of governance to be spread to- and become more firmly entrenched in other countries....

Surely, the rights and legal guarantees which we in the developed world take for granted such as:

universal-suffrage democracy; human rights-based rule-of law; equal application of a country's laws to its residents/citizens regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and creed; freedoms of speech, thought, association, expression, peaceful assembly and belief....

... are sufficiently worthy for NATO/western countries to fight for- or at least support the establishment of- in countries whose citizens are demanding such??

Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

The comments to this entry are closed.



Most Updated

Other Pages


  • Extreme Tracking