Muammar Al Khadafi

Well, what did we say months ago? British troops are going to end up on the ground in Libya most likely. They'll get called peacekeepers or some such platitude, but they'll be there, an occupying force diving for cover as roadside bombs explode in the aftermath of a war in which we don't belong.



"So, we're now in another war, not as aggressor, but as Liberator with a capital L. And, be honest, who thinks that it will stop with a few air strikes? We'll end up with troops on the ground, another Iraq or Afghanistan making a graveyard for our brave soldiers, and a presence in another country which does not really want us there. "



Or "Are British warplanes and bombs being used in support of a profits driven war? And how long is it before we see western troops on the ground - in the guise of peacekeepers or humanitarian helpers of course - to ensure that the revolution is a success, and that the new regime continues to toe the party line?"



There you go, from March 20th and 10th April respectively on South West Nationalists.



We were right. Libya will be become a zone of occupation, manned by peacekeepers - but every nation can call their troops that, it doesn't make it true.



Now we have it from the horses mouth, deployment is 'unlikely' but Number 10 won't rule it out.



"The troops have been on standby for Libya since the start of July. All their kit is packed and they are just waiting to get the call to go." says a source quoted by the Daily Mail.



It was all so obvious back then how it would pan out, and it is all so obvious now.



British troops, bearing the name of peacekeeper or humanitarian assistant, or adviser, on the ground and shedding their blood.



British money spent to prop up a regime that remains in existence only because of Western support.



A bottomless pit that eats the lives of our heroes, and the money of the British taxpayer, for decades to come.



Another Afghanistan, another Iraq, another war for which we will all pay, and which we should never have been involved in.



We call it moral, but it isn't - two or three years ago we had no issue with fawning over Gaddafi, those images of a grinning Blair shaking his hand say it all.



We deal with worse regimes every day, but don't decide to go to war on them - instead, we give many our money, support, foreign aid, sell them weapons.



Where we end in Libya - a few companies getting rich, and British soldiers and money thrown into the inferno for a decade to come.



We'll call it morality and peacekeeping, we'll say we are helping people there to embrace democracy. If you believe that you'll believe anything, we've very selective perception when it comes to deciding who should next benefit from democracy at the barrel of a gun or the crater of a bomb blast, and who we'll turn a blind eye to.



Expediency is everything. You think those Libyan 'rebels' secured oil contracts and created a central bank before they achieved a thing, you think the press suddenly decided to gleefully proclaim their heroic and freedom loving credentials and turn a blind eye to everything else, without some major Western money interests pulling strings?



This, like the other wars in which we are engaged, is not a British war nor the British peoples war - it's a politicians and profits war pure and simple.



It is not in our name. When our troops are there dying on the ground, and make no mistake that they will soon be doing just that, the politicians will have much to answer for.



The politicians never answer though, it's not them or theirs doing the dying, nor them paying the butchers bill, they just get to play the saviour in their soundbite interviews and to pick up those lucrative directorships once they are out of office.