Dizzy Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 ?2 million a day would be worth it IF it could stop it all but Gaddafi and his supporters will never back down as it is inbred into them and they will die and fight for as long as it takes or until the last one is standing for what 'they' believe in ... the Rebels will never back down either and they too will die and fight for what they 'believe' in. So yes, there may now currently be a no fly zone but all that has done is balance the sides a little more and the fighting and killing between the two sides will continue on the ground and the civilians in the middle (who we are apparently trying to protect) will still suffer So WHAT'S NEXT and when will the countries who have got involved start to 'suffer' too I do see the point Obs is making though... if our Government are making so many defence cuts to our services such as scrapping our forces ships, planes personnel etc then maybe they should not be shelling out so much to fight another countries 'war' that has no obvious or likely possitive end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Dizzy Its about the oil not the people, If it was about the people we would have also gone into other Countries, Yemen ect, Sadly they do not have oil. And so we are not their. Europe buys a lot of oil from Libya, The UK and France both have oil deals with Libya, and from the United States point of view and unstable oil producing Country makes the cost of energy go up, and thats bad for business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Kyje, our war Dept is titled the Ministry of "Defence" NOT "offence" - so in principle I see no justification in "wars" sought by kudos seeking politicians or profit seeking oil or arms dealers. Diz, you've hit on a basic contradiction - by evening out the odds in this "civil" war, the West has ensured it will be more protracted and probably cost more lives. We've even had the absurdity of US rescue helicopters firing on (rebel) civilians, who were engaged in rescuing two downed US pilots - - so much for the sanctity of human life. The problem now is - how is this going to end? The Arabs are already getting cold feet, the Yanks are trying to wash their hands of it and NATO allies, like Norway, have already backed down in the absence of a credible command and control structure. IF, the real objective is the elimination Gadafi, far easier and cheaper to have assassinated him courtesy of the CIA and Special Forces; now as a wounded beast, he will become much more of a danger - to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Are we not defending are energy supplies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 How do you "defend" a resource that's not yours to begin with - hence my rants elsewhere, that we should be striving for energy self sufficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Nuclear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Kije, what is your problem with defending oil supplies to our country? If all the dictators and such like were to stop oil to the UK, it would lay waste to our entire way of life; virtually overnight. Nothing would function including ambulances, fire engines and even Ice Cream Vans...... We have a massive interest in being friendly to whoever has the oil..... that is just they way it is; unless you would prefer us all to return to the stone age because without a viable alternative, we are screwed without oil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Baz I don't have a problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I reiterate: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom. Ten Security Council members voted in the affirmative (Bosnia-Hercegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa, and permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Five (Brazil, Germany, and India, and permanent members China and Russia) abstained, with none opposed. The resolution demands "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizes the international community to establish a no-fly zone over Libya and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians ** UN (17 March 2011). "Security Council authorizes ?all necessary measures? to protect civilians in Libya". UN News Centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Mary, some only see what they want to see. Perhaps they still think Bush is in control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Well I agree with what Obs says and they have all gone in 'all guns blazing' and now can't even agree on who may take over, who does what next or when (if anything) and what the next stage may/may not be. From where I'm sitting and what I'm reading and hearing they are starting to look like they are falling apart at the seams already. No structure, no plan, no agreement blah blah and Gadaffi must be having a right old laugh and the 'united' force Unless it's just a plot to make him 'think' we don't know what we are doing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Mary, some only see what they want to see. Perhaps they still think Bush is in control. What's that supposed to mean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Actually, it could be Pope Leo in control - I think he invented the Crusades! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Every time there is a war, people want the i's dotting and the t's crossing. I would have thought the last thing that Gaddafi needed from the "coalition" was their plans. The no-fly zone is to stop Gad boy bombing the insurgents, and to implement that they take out radar and other communication sites. "Gaddafi,we are going to bomb one of your radar sites" Thanks for letting me know,I will move away". Gaddafi to number one son" Move those idiot supporters to the radar site. That will make them call off the bombing or we can claim that they are bombing civilians". Sorry people, it's on a need to know basis. They are NOT allowed to kill Gad boy, but if he happens to be near a bona fide target,it's a bonus. I would have thought the idea was that by stopping the bombing of the insurgents, it was creating a more level playing field that would help to vanquish Gad boy and his brain-washed peasants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Errm nope; evening out the playing field will merely elongate the process. Errm, even the cleaner at Sandhurst would know that the primary targets for our fly boys will be command and control, and AA sites - so no secrets there. And in their infinite wisdom, what do our pilots do in the event of a "rebel" offensive? Bomb the s***t out of Gadafi's side for defending themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes if the rebels are killing civilians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Sorry people, it's on a need to know basis.. . . I would have thought the idea was that by stopping the bombing of the insurgents, it was creating a more level playing field that would help to vanquish Gad boy and his brain-washed peasants. Your whole post was was a really good rant Peter but no-one in their right mind expects USA, the allies, the UN or NATO etc tell the world and Gadaffi what they are upto as that, like you say, would be pretty stupid. Hoverver, having it reported in nearly every news article that they are all now disagreeing and for want of better words 'falling out themselves' over what is/isn't being done cant be good can it ? As for Gadaffi and his brainwashed peasants... how does anyone really know what the rebels themselves are like or indeed how many of them may even be on Gadaffi's side but are playing a part in his plan You say Sorry people, it's on a need to know basis. And no-one really knows it seems... including our chaps who are out there putting their own lives at risk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes if the rebels are killing civilians Sorry Lt I missed your comment as it was on a seperate page to Peter's Are the rebels trustworthy I'm still with Obs on this one which in itself is shocking enough ! edited as I put 'sutty' rather than 'sorry'... must be catching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Wasn't having a rant. Just don't understand all the speculation without any of the facts. It has been made abundantly clear, that the Americans are NOT leading the operation and abundantly clear what the rules are. obs. NOT necessarily the case. The rebels will be able to get to Gaddafi's hole and force the issue if they are not getting bombed. And the more successful they become the bigger the number who will swop sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Sorry Peter they have been leading up till now, they are trying to get NATO to take over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 For once Lt you are right Peter... open your eyes... do you not read the papers Someone had to 'lead' it though I guess. Don't worry as Davey is obviously still very keen and an international conference being held in London next week so they can all take stock of developments and 'discuss the command structure for the allied military operations'. Why London ?? Wonder how high the security bill will be for that conference eh Will it be more or less than the royal wedding or the olympics or has the security on those two now gone way through the roof ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Think some assumptions are being made as to just who's who, and who supports what. There's no evidence todate to suggest any overwhelming support for "the rebels", or indeed that "the rebels" are a cohesive entity - and we certainly have no intelligence as to their agenda or affiliations - the only reason for this intervention is overtly to save "civilian" lives - which can be difficult to judge at 5,000ft and at mach 1, as most of the folk shown on TV are wearing "civilian" dress, albeit some accompanied by an AK47. We also need to bare in mind, that this (like many Arab cultures) is a highly tribal society, with consequent loyalties. IF the objective is to safeguard civilians, then the obvious move would be for the UN to insist on a ceasefire by BOTH sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 As always Lt you are right Thats better Like you Obs I would not call the rebels cohesive yet, but they might get there given a bit of time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Get where? They could merely produce their own dictator or some Islamic radical agenda - or just start squabbling among themselves - which wouldn't help the price of fuel at the pumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Or they could form a good government, given chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.