Posted on 04/28/2011 6:28:40 AM PDT by Cardhu
British Defense Secretary Liam Fox has announced plans to deploy British troops on the Libyan border with Tunisia.
In a parliamentary session on Wednesday, Fox claimed the British troops will be dispatched to the border to enforce “safe havens” for more than 30,000 civilian refugees fleeing from attacks by Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi's troops, the Independent reported.
He also asserted that the troop deployment would be within the terms of a UN resolution authorizing military action in Libya.
Defying warnings that the UK may have to prepare itself for a long war, Fox reiterated that British operation in Libya “isn't time-limited.”
However, he rejected suggestions that the Libyan war has reached a stalemate, saying “politically, economically, [and] militarily, we are moving forward.”
Despite economic austerity measures adopted by the British government, the defense minister insisted that the required funds would be allocated to continue operations in Libya for as long as necessary.
“We are not going to be limited by pounds, shillings and pence but we have the resolve to see through the mission,” he said.
Since the revolution against Colonel Gaddafi's regime began in mid-February, tens of thousands have been killed and injured in clashes between Libyan revolutionaries and pro-Gaddafi forces.
US Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz estimated on Wednesday that the number of Libyan fatalities since the revolution in the North African country began may be as high as 30,000 people.
Meanwhile, many civilians have reportedly been killed since the Western coalition unleashed a major air campaign against Libyan forces on March 19 under a UN mandate, namely to “protect the Libyan population.”
(Excerpt) Read more at presstv.ir ...
That's no reason to call them names.
:>)
LOL
Any number of British liberals talked about Blair as having followed his Washington master’s voice by sending troops to Iraq. So...is it now OK for a Liberal PM to send troops to trade blood for oil? It is apparently OK for the Dems to follow the “O” in attacking countries that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.
The current PM is Dave Cameron, a member of the Conservative Party.
David Cameron is a tory not liberal at all. But, I am sure that there has been collusion between the US and UK before this announcement.
Sorry for the error. I hadn’t heard about any uproar from the Brits regarding Libya, and figured they were being overly quiet for the same reason as the Dems over here.
They will regret this.
Just like the good old days with Monty, eh lads?
And “days not weeks.”
At least they won’t have Erwin to worry about.
And there will be no George Patton to save their azzes this time.
Is it to keep people in? Or is it to keep people out?
The British have reduced their forces to the point that they have very few troops.
They will need NATO help.
(NATO=US)
I’m sure they have conferred about how to bring this about—the US can’t go in first, but we’ll “creep” in by stages.
(Don’t hold your breath waiting for any war protesters, or signs about “no war for oil!”)
Dude, I am with you on this. I have been joking all along that the surest sign that regular U.S. ground troops will end up in Libya is Obama’s categorical promise not to do this.
Can’t the Tunisians guard their own border? Shouldn’t they be consulted before UK troops get stationed on it? When will UNRWA show up to make sure the refugees stay in their refugee camps for six or seven generations, and pass out ration cards?
This is sure to piss off the Russians! What happens if the Russians decide to send their own troops to Libya? Is the UK willing to start WWIII?
Better them than US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.