UKC

1980s Conservative gov trains Libyan airforce pilots and provides weapons to Libya. Then Arab Spring and we send airforce to keep planes on the ground to allow internal political change. Now 2012 Cameron Goes to Bahrain and UAE with arms dealers and ignores signs of internal desires for political change. No lessons learnt....

In reply to MargieB: I'm all for it, sell them all the weapons they want then stand back and let them get on with killing each other. We might as well make a few bucks from their squabbling.

In reply to MargieB:

Is this your party idea for a 10 year old?
I think you'll find that supporting the defence industry is not a habit exclusive to the conservatives.

In reply to MargieB:

Well learnt lessons - who profits? Foreign Policy promoting democracy & freedom were the smokescreen of the New Labour government and playing to the crowd, anytime we want a war we have a PR team/sexing up documents/intelligence service leaking porkies to the media and otherwise creating reasons for smiting these nasty brown fellows. The government lies to the electorate all the time about its motivations and U.K. home office policy why would foreign relations be any different?

D

In reply to MargieB:

You're not aware that Napoleon's troops used to march in British made boots?

That the Argentinian Navy that faced the RN during the Falklands conflict had British built type 42 destroyers equipped with better EW gear than the RN could afford to buy?

etc

etc

Plus ca change...

In reply to Postmanpat:

"Conservative gov trains Libyan airforce pilots"

I'm getting a mental image of Michael Heseltine in flying goggles and mortar board...

In reply to MargieB:
Best way to fight a war, you know all the bugs with their kit and you can pick up their ammunition when they scarper. Even better, once you've bombed them back to the stone age and put a puppet in power you can sell them your surplus spares to patch up their kit.

In reply to Postmanpat: Didn't say it was. But they are in power now and are making these decisions.

In reply to MargieB:

Is your beef with the Conservatives specifically or with British foreign policy in general ? your post isn't very clear on the matter.

In reply to Removed User:


and the English and Welsh archers got their yew bows from the continent.

In reply to GrahamD: Each successive government adds onto the decisions of the last but there is repetition in decision making by all governing parties, and now the Conservatives. The Middle east seems to require a visionary step forward. Fearing nuclear proliferation means We sell To Bahrain and UAE but ignore the leverage which we could now exert to institute changes in their internal politics. Selling armaments now is rolling over to requests of fear in the face of Iran - ignoring their possible usage in future Arab Internal Strife.We have huge presence in the Gulf to allay fears from Iran. Yes, its exasperation at general approaches to the place. There's work for the UN to broker a two state solution , rope democratised Arab states into meaningful negotiation with Israel , Probably won't happen before the process of democratisation and stabilization of Arab states. But selling arms to Bahrain doesn't endear or align the UK to the Arab Spring- it gives the opposite signal.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

and in a few years and a couple of handy backdoors you could win the war without turning up. Quick switching of the IFF settings and victory.

In reply to MargieB:

Did they? What weapons and how and where was the training done? I presume it must have been well before 86 when the F-111s from East Anglia went in. But didn't we know that Gaddafi was trying to supply the IRA before that?

In reply to MargieB: The bit I most like is that not only do we sell the arms, we then go on after their conflicts and make a fortune on the reconstruction projects.
Damn, were good.

In reply to MargieB:

U.K. foreign policy decisions allude to a deep state - hardly seems to matter who is in power the war machine marches on...

d

In reply to Dauphin:

None of which contradicts the Op's point that at present there is a Conservative government and they are supplying arms to a dictatorship which has just repressed its population and is still condemning doctors who took care of injured people. That other governments did the same, whether true or not, doesn't change this.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Some interesting reading for you Bruce

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/05/if_you_take_my_advice_-_id_re...

d

In reply to Dauphin:
We have the highest double standards in the world.

In reply to Jim C: The OP, or anyone else for matter, still haven't explained what she is actually referring to in the first post. I don't know anything about UK-Libyan relations in the very early 80s, but at least by 85, it seems very unlikely the UK was selling weapons to Gaddafi. So I'm intrigued by what was sold by whom and when exactly?

In reply to TobyA:

maybe it is confused by dates/ country but the sub-text still holds, there is nothing particularly special about Kaddafi in his level of tyrantdom that we haven't treated with goodies from BAE toybox. Plenty of materiel & training following Blair's Lawrence moment in the desert 2004/2005.

d

In reply to MargieB: Thought Tony B liar was sorting out the Middle East like he sorted out Iraq and N Ireland.Useleess idiot

In reply to MargieB:

This has nothing to do with morals or political change. It has only to do with what the Conservatives do best - MONEY!

In reply to Dauphin:
I'm quite aware of the British role in the area, just reading a book called "A Line in the Sand" which goes into considerable detail about the zig-zag policy pursued, with a dominant line being following what the government of whatever day saw as "British interests" but in what way does that contradict what the OP has posted? Saying it's nothing new doesn't mean it's not still going on, on the contrary.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

yes Bruce I agree with you and the gist of the OP

d

In reply to EeeByGum:

Actually what it has to do with is jobs and votes, something which I think you'll find both parties are keen on, but don't let that get in the way of some good old fashioned tribalist nonsense.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So you deny that the Conservative party is the major party which supports the interests of the more well off part of the population and has the most backing of industry and finance?

If you do then it's a little surprising.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No. Your traditional dishonest distortion of anything anybody says. Byeee...x

In reply to MargieB: Bahranian security is crucial to American Naval superiority in the Gulf. Their entire fleet docks their at some time or other.

In reply to MargieB: yeah lets have tree hugging commies running the country, do so much of a better job, get real war is war irrespective of race religion, politics, its what we like to do.I suppose there's no criminality in your cloud cuckoo land and everyone loves everyone!nm
Life is often brutal and short, as I have said before you sit behind your computer in the safeness of this emerald isle because of warfare..
When theres no more bad people we can all go sleep in that cloud you live in, its all so easy to spout rhetoric, someone else will always be doing the responsible actions that are required

In reply to Dauphin: Well, the OPs original post was so specific (pilot training for Libyan airfore) I presumed she knew exactly of the specific case and that's what I'm interested in.

But of course any "sub-text still holds" if you simply make shit up to justify your point.

In reply to MargieB:

I'm with Toby. This sounds v unlikely> no that it hasn't happened between other countries but UK-Libya in the 80s just doesn't ring true somehow.

1970s

December 29, 1979: The U.S. government places Libya on a newly created list of state sponsors of terrorism. Countries on the list are subject to a variety of U.S. sanctions.

1978-1981: Libya purchases more than 2,000 tons of lightly processed uranium from Niger. The Soviet Union completes a 10 megawatt nuclear research reactor at Tajoura.

1980s

May 6, 1981: The United States closes Libya’s embassy in Washington and expels Libyan diplomats.

August 19, 1981: U.S. aircraft shoot down two Libyan combat jets that fired on them over the Mediterranean Sea.

April 1984: Britain severs diplomatic relations with Libya after PC Yvonne Fletcher is killed by shots fired from within the Libyan Embassy in London while policing an anti-Gadaffi protest outside.

January 7, 1986: President Ronald Reagan issues an executive order imposing additional economic sanctions against Libya in response to Tripoli’s continued support for international terrorism, including two December 1985 attacks at airports in Rome and Vienna. The order bans most Libyan imports and all U.S. exports to Libya, as well as commercial contracts and travel to the country. Libyan assets in the United States are also frozen. Reagan authorizes the sanctions under the authority of several U.S. laws, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

April 15, 1986: U.S. forces launch aerial bombing strikes against Libya in response to Tripoli’s involvement in an April 5 terrorist attack that killed two American servicemen at a Berlin disco.

December 21, 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 en route from London to New York explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people on board and 11 bystanders on the ground. In November 1991, investigators in the United States and United Kingdom name two Libyan officials as prime suspects in the bombing.

September 19, 1989: The French airliner UTA Flight 772 bound for Paris explodes, killing all 171 people on board. Investigating authorities find evidence of terrorism and indict two Libyan suspects in 1991.

In reply to Postmanpat:

And how exactly should we categorise your remark:


it looks more dishonest and distorted than what I asked you about... I've noticed you have slipped of late, from "reasonable tory" to "excessive tory", rating down from BBB to BB- in terms that a banker might understand better.

In reply to muppetfilter:

Quite true... I wonder how many people have looked at map showing foreign naval bases around the globe or more particularly in the Middle East? The enormous preponderance of US bases is mind boggling. Quiet often the illustrator doing the diagram has a job to cram all the little symbols of US aircraft, ships and soldiers into the room available.

Funnily it rarely appears to shock people... unlike the solitary little symbol showing a few Russian ships in one Syrian port, no Chinese little red boats anywhere to be seen, of course.

In reply to TobyA:

You are up to your old tricks again of latching on to a detail rather than reply to the actual issue being raised in the OP. Goebbels would have been proud of you .... once again.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Your somewhat distorted list seems to stop short of the rehabilitation of Libya into the anti islamist fold, the invitations of Gaddafi to London, Paris etc and the shakings of hands, planting of his tent on the Champs Elysées lawns and so on....

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Yawn. You're getting dull old chap. I'm just interested, if the UK did train Libyan pilots in the 80s that's interesting considering the times and something I've never heard about. If they didn't, then what on earth is the OP on about?

BTW, did you know Goebbels was Cuban by birth? Ironic isn't it, that he set the propaganda agenda for the Castro regime 30 years later?

And please don't just "latch on to a detail", like it being bollocks that Goebbels was Cuban, rather than replying to "the actual issue being raised".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It's not distorted at all, MargieB wrote "1980s Conservative gov trains Libyan airforce pilots and provides weapons to Libya". What the 90s and 2000s governments had as Libya policy doesn't really matter to her point.

In reply to MargieB: "Tony Blair says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism. After shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi at the start of the historic talks, the prime minister said there was real hope for a "new relationship".

It is the first visit by a British prime minister since 1943 and comes after US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns this week became the most senior American to visit since the 1969 coup which brought Colonel Gaddafi to power.

BBC News political editor Andrew Marr said: "This is an absolutely pivotal moment in the history of the region, possibly even in the history of the war against terrorism."

What was that about the Conservatives again?

In reply to stroppygob:


Many would say that TB was a conservative, even turning to catholicism if what we read is true, although the c is a small one.

Perhaps the OP would have attracted less criticism if she had said "'British governments" rather than "Conservatives" in the title?

In reply to TobyA:


Is that so? I didn't know that - looking at his photo though it's not hard to imagine him singing a bitter sweet tango ballad:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1968-101-20A,_Jo...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

TB certainly was something beginning with C.





But we'd have lost the humour of the "training pilots' myth etc, and tehy wouldn't have got such a happy slapping over their stupidity then!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Sound of penny dropping..............

In reply to Postmanpat: Or if she could come back and actually give us some details on what she is talking about.

In reply to TobyA:

Given that almost ghadaffi's first action was to kick out the french and brits and replace them with soviet kit and training her casim seemd incredibly unlikely

In reply to TobyA:

Jesus, Toby & you accuse Bruce of being derailed by the details...how could you pretend to be interested as you know this training never happened.

d

In reply to Dauphin: try tapping into your web search "21 Libyan students to be expelled from UK 23 April 1986"

In reply to MargieB: "Britain to expel 21 Libyan students 23 april 1986"- to be more accurate.

In reply to MargieB:

I can only find one reference to a pilot at that time - training at a private pilot school in the UK.
Not exactly Conservative sanctioned training of military pilots at RAF Cranwell.

The original point of the originator stands.

We should campaign against the arms trade full stop!

If it was your child killed by a bae weapon, you'd agree.

It's too easy to sit in your safe home, take your chosen risks through climbing, and pronounce on moral arms sales.

There are no moral arms sales!

In reply to moraldecay:
> There are no moral arms sales!


With the obvious exception of the sales of arms to UK forces...

In reply to off-duty:

I thought we were discussing cross border arms sales?

And yes, i have questions regarding arms sales to the authoraties: jean Charles de menerez, ian tomlinson, smiley culture, duggan, lidell towers, Birmingham six, guildford four, etc.

Most gun murders in the UK and Europe are committed with guns from conflict zones, sold by our companies.

We can add peterloo, orgreave colliery, etc,

In reply to moraldecay:

What are your questions? Other than 'how do I spell, punctuate and construct coherent sentences?' obviously.

Really? Can you prove this or provide even anecdotal evidence to support your claim?

In reply to Fickalli:


They might be "how do I avoid throwing in all the irrelevant and (to me) emotive cause-celebres that I can think of, and maybe present an argument that might even slightly persuade or interest an uncomitted person in what I am claiming? (Whatever that might be, other than 'the West' is inherently evil)".


The most popular firearm in conflict zones is widely recognised as the AK 47, nothing whatever to do with "our" companies. Most small arms are also of former Soviet block origin.

In reply to moraldecay:


If I was sat in my village and the Lords Resistance Army or similar were on their way I'd want the world's supply of anti-personnel mines in the surrounding fields, even if the ghost of Princess Diana didn't approve.

In reply to Fickalli:

Yes thank you. My punctuation is shite. Hell its not my fault i am only a product of the education they let us have

secondly, and more importantly than semi colons, yes i can. See adventures in the arms trade. I will dig out the book and give you the author.

In reply to Simon4:

Exactly what I was thinking. And although I have no evidence (other than personal experience of being in 'conflict zones') to back it up, my belief, similar to yours, is that the vast majority of weapons used in 'conflict zones' are Russian or Chinese. The reason for this is that they are much more readily available than weapons made by, for example, BAE, which are tightly controlled and very expensive for, often poorly funded, guerilla groups.

However, let's not let that get in the way of decrying the 'Conservatives' and the evils of the West whilst enjoying the benefits and luxuries that are a result of choosing to live in those evil Western countries.

In reply to moraldecay:

Oh aye, I'll never forget the day that Harriers dropped cluster bombs on Orgreave..

In reply to moraldecay:

Get a feckin grip - do you think the rest of us were born with an inherent ability to spell and proof read?

In reply to Fickalli:

Im sorry! It was you who derided me for my poor grammar in the first place.

Which is it? Was my syntax so bad that it needs mocking, or do i make my point despite my illiteracy. Shit, i don't even know if i spelt that right. I is sure you'll correct I

In reply to moraldecay:

How about make your point but learn how to spell (or use a spell checker) and use punctuation? That way you might actually make a point.

Secondly, don't blame your poor spelling and grammar on someone else.

In reply to Simon4:
Interesting little pdf on the use of firearms in crime in the UK. Barely an AK in sight, some almost funny comments about the quality and availability of ammunition.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CE8QFjAF&...

In reply to Fickalli:

How about stop criticising me for poor grammar, spelling etc?

I have made a point, despite being illiterate by your standards.

In reply to moraldecay:

This is the first of your posts that I replied to, I'm not sure if you posted further up the thread. Could you perhaps explain what point you are trying to make because it is not at all clear.

In reply to Fickalli:

All points made above bud. Someone must be answering on your behalf?

My points: arms sales are wrong. Most gun murders in Europe are committed with guns that we in Europe or the US supply.

Oh, and my grammar is shit, which somehow detracts from what i have to say. Go figure?

In reply to Ridge:

What about the strikers heads broken by the army and police?


forgotten them, or just don't care?

In reply to moraldecay:

The strikers were of course all innocent ickle lambs.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

They were people fighting for the right to work for a decent standard of life, and keep their communities alive.

Yes, they were innocent people.

Don't hide behind innuendo. Tell us why they weren't innocent?

In reply to moraldecay:

The quality of your posts seems to have improved immeasurably. That horrendous education that 'they let you have' seems to have kicked in....

In reply to Dauphin:
Given that the OP's headline highlighted Conservatives an Libya I sort of thought that they might be important to whatever point she was trying to make.
It appears that: a) what she alleged never happened b) In a broader sense arms sales promotion is not even remotely exclusive to Conservatives and c) At the time she referred to Gadhaffi was quite clearly regarded as an enemy of the West which the rulers of the UAE are not so her example is, even were it true, bollocks.

You may regard this as picking on petty detail. I would regard it as making her OP, er, bollocks.

In reply to Fickalli:

Yea cheers for that. I didn't make it to the end of my horrendous education by the way. Its just basic human compassion and a refusal to accept bullshit kicking in

In reply to moraldecay:

I have no idea what you mean by this. Have a nice evening.

In reply to moraldecay:

I've missed Shona so much. It's great to have you around. Keep it up.

In reply to Fickalli:

no worries.

Original posters point stands and is proven.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Who the hell is shona? Maybe i am shona? Maybe im channeling her?

Whatever, I'll fight her corner

In reply to moraldecay: Chicago Tribune mentions "Libyan pilotS training in this country" -referring to Britain- April 23 1986

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Yes the strikers were innocent! Still waiting for a response?

In reply to MargieB: They were training to be airline pilots, did you not bother reading the story you quote?

In reply to moraldecay:

You don't know the much missed Shona, ShonaM, workingclassgirl, naedanger?
Sadly she was a little too feisty for her own good.

In reply to Postmanpat: See also janiejonesworld.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yup, sorry, missed that one

In reply to Postmanpat:

Go for it, warn me about what happens to working class feisty people!? Ilk try not to shit myself!

In reply to moraldecay:

You become a UKC unperson

In reply to Postmanpat:

Better to be a ukc unperson, than a self obsessed look at me, arent i important, wankfest

In reply to moraldecay:

Ooh, you're nearly as sexy as her! You are a woman aren't you? I do hope so xx

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


Striking is not a criminal offence, even if you may think this is the case... most people who go on strike are totally innocent. We are in the 21st century not the 19th.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: (Yawn) Yes Bruce, most are. Some however chuck concrete slabs through lorry windscreens.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Read my post carefully, even if this makes you yawn, and you will notice that is exactly what I said.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So, do you want to back up your Tory anti union views? Is it acceptable to set police, army, dogs, etc on people on strike?

In reply to moraldecay:

Bloody hell. I thought of all the people in the world, I was THE bloke most in need of a blow job.

But your need seems greater than mine.

Fair play to you though, anyone who manages to keep the class warrior thing going past university deserves merit for effort if nothing else.

One of my grandparents was imprisoned over the leckhampton hill riots. They fought the police with rocks, and tore a house down and fought for access rights to land.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Definitely not!

Unlike yourself never been to university, genuine class warrior

In reply to moraldecay:



Well, respect to you for sticking with the losing side.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Really! The poor are the losing side? I was just arguing for a more equal society. You seem to hate the poor, and the poor who have the audacity to strike for some rights.

By the way, blow jobs aplenty here. That's your hang up

In reply to moraldecay:


How DARE you?
I do not hate the poor and never have.










Someone has to follow orders and do the work!

In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Really! No more orders and no more work. We want our share.

In reply to moraldecay: Are you going to take your share or work for it?

In reply to MargieB:


I'm not sure why you couldn't have just linked the story in the first place? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-23/news/8601290502_1_libyan-stud...

"At last count there were 5,000 Libyans in Britain, including 250 technicians and trainee pilots at the two London airports and at a flying school near Oxford."

It makes no mention of those pilots a) being from the Libyan airforce or b) being trained by the UK government. Nor does that Chicago Tribune article mention weapons sales - but perhaps you have other links about that?

In reply to moraldecay:

You do realise that while it may not be easy........ we do live in a society where pretty much anyone can aspire to anything if they work for it.


What makes me laugh about you people is that even if you got what you wanted, a redistribution of wealth, within a couple of generations, most of them would have spunked it up the wall and be back looking for handouts once again from the people with the drive to work for what they want rather than demand it as a 'right'

You're funny.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Take it!

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

We're funny, but we're coming

In reply to moraldecay:

Ok. I consider myself warned.

Though do be aware that if you try to take from most people, no matter how middle class in a way that's intimidating, many of them would quite happily stick a knife in your throat to protect their own.

But somehow, I think we're all pretty safe.
If saying to yourself 'we're coming' makes you feel like you're poised for action, it's all to the good.

Anyway, you should get some rest, you've probably got a hard day on some horrible production line or somesuch tomorrow?

In reply to TobyA:

Not for the first time I worry about the sanity of the sort of people who can misinterpret what they read so comprehensively. I wonder if they are all Hooker avatars? He does have an uncanny habit of appearing on his white stallion to support them.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


Well I wasn't saying that AK 47s were used in Britain, just that they are by far the most popular weapons in civil conflicts in the third world or other places were civil order has failed. So "MoralDecay" was simply talking rubbish. But we knew that anyway, these obsessives come up from time to time, they have only a tangential relationship with reality.

They are cheap, readily available, having been produced in millions, not by the evil capitalist West but by the USSR, which "MoralDecay" would undoubtedly have been an appologist for, had he been born at the right time. Just as he would have excused the famine in the Ukraine, the Great Terror, the killing fields of Cambodia, the extermination of Tamils in Sri Lanka or any other "non-Western" attrocity.

AK 47s also have the reputation of being incredibly resilient, in that you can drag them through mud, leave them uncleaned for months on end and generally ill-treat them, but they will still fire. Possibly in the direction you point them as well.

In reply to moraldecay:

Were they using batons made by BAE and purchased by international arms dealers and smuggked back to the UK, which was your original point.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I'll consider myself warned. If the middle class will stickstick a knife in my throat I'll carry a bigger knife. and strike first.

In reply to moraldecay:

Sounds a lot like an arms race to me.
Dodgy ground given the thread you're posting on

In reply to moraldecay:

I see in my absence you appear to have recieved a bit of a verbal battering for that load of nonsense, picking it apart further would probably just count as malicious. Though you probably object to the immoral import of keyboards as well.

For some reason you appear to believe that this all seems to support the original point - which as I understood it had something to do with the made up Libyan pilots that were being personally trained in conservative head office.

In reply to off-duty:


TobyA has posted a reference to a Chicago Times article dating from 1986 just above which covers the question of Libyan pilots training in Britain -250 "technicians and trainee pilots" were in Britain at the time apparently:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-23/news/8601290502_1_libyan-stud...

No mention of it being in Tory head office though, it refers to a school in Oxford and I'm sure you know Tory Head Office is not in Oxford. Where is it BTW?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Is it a normal route into the Libyan airforce to train on commercial airlines?
I imagine that the ability to serve piping hot airline meals mid flight is a handy skill when piloting two seater jet fighters.