Jump to content

War on Libya..?

Thedelldays

By Thedelldays,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

dune

dune

Posted
Posted
But how do we get round the fact that he's using human shields in strategic areas? I know that's why one sortie pulled out this morning, so how else can we neutralise his defences?

 

From reports from experts we have pretty much already taken out his static air defences, although his radar systems still need to be neutralised. Then we need to disable his intelligence capabilities. The bombing of government buildings is essential.

 

Of course there will be collateral damage, but this is the price the Libyans will have to pay if they want democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted
I think you'll find dune isn't interested in humans, so using them as shields won't register on what is laughingly called his radar.

 

I can say with complete honesty and sincerity that I couldn't care two hoots what you think about this campaign. Actually i'm enjoying the fact you don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
From reports from experts we have pretty much already taken out his static air defences, although his radar systems still need to be neutralised. Then we need to disable his intelligence capabilities. The bombing of government buildings is essential.

 

Of course there will be collateral damage, but this is the price the Libyans will have to pay if they want democracy.

 

Democracy in the Arab world, that'll be something new then. It's something that they just don't understand.Whereas others protests via the urns or in the streets the arabs protest with RPGs,suicide bombings and Kalashiikovs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted
The problem we have now is that the Rebels in Benghazi know that as long as they keep the fighting going then Gadaffi can be accused of breaking the ceasefire and the bombing can continue.

 

That's a bonus. Once the rebels break out west then Gadaffi will be a severely weakened as those hitherto too scared to been seen to be against him join them. I saw an interview with a Libyan Brit and he welcomes the allied action and says 99% of Libyans hate Gadaffi and most of those we see in pro Gadaffi demos are forced there on pain of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted
Dunce's usual modus operandi is to support the perceived winner. Remember in the election how he supported UKIP until it became apparent that UKIP had failed? Dunce became a born-again Tory.

 

I've always been a traditional right wing Conservative. Ideally i'd like to see the party move to the right a lot more, but having them in power is miles better than Labour who i deteste with a passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
.... but this is the price the Libyans will have to pay if they want democracy.

So, is that the UK form of democracy where less than 30% of those registered to vote can produce a Government with an overwhelming majority, or the US one, where you get a 'choice' between 'right of centre' and raving bigots ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sebastian firefly

sebastian firefly

Posted
Posted
its easy as it can be hit from European bases...we can launch tomahawks and storm shadows from the sea/air.....no need for permission to use air space....etc etc.

saying that, Tomahawks can be launched from under the water and are accurate enough that you can chose which window you want it to go through....from over 1000 miles away......impressive

 

just that the windows are often in the wrong building doh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
its easy as it can be hit from European bases...we can launch tomahawks and storm shadows from the sea/air.....no need for permission to use air space....etc etc.

saying that, Tomahawks can be launched from under the water and are accurate enough that you can chose which window you want it to go through....from over 1000 miles away......impressive

 

And bringing the B2s from Missouri,where does that fit in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scotty

scotty

Posted
Posted
I see the americans are about to totally handover this libya conflict to a french/british or nato responsibility

 

Obama is a shrewd character or is he stitching us brits and french like a prized kipper

 

Nope. The yanks "stayed" out of the UN resolution because they knew full well that if they were seen to be backing it, in the light of the Iraq fiasco, it would never get through. They "came on board" at the last possible moment so that it could go through. All the apparent hesitatation and prevarication was pre-planned. Obama and Cameron played their cards very close to the chest, and pretty well imho.

 

Don't be so silly. They just happened to have their subs in situ and have all the logistical necessities available in the area at the time. I think it was more a case of luck.

 

I stand by my statement. The russians or chinese would have vetoed the resolution if the americans had not been publicly seen to be reluctant about the action, and I'm convinced that Cameron and Obama realised that. There was an interview on R4 this morning when pretty much the same thing was said, I think by jeremy corbyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guan 2.0

Guan 2.0

Posted
Posted

I honestly can't believe some of the anti-interventionist rhetoric written on here and seen in public polls. History has shown that policies of isolationism only result in a country turning inward, being unable to affect positive change anywhere in the world outside their territory, and suffering as a society.

 

Not to mention that it's just, legal, and in the hope of toppling a dictator and bringing democracy, but that hasn't seemed to convince the 'I'm alright jack crowd'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
So why not sort out Mugabe in the same way ? Oh, hang on, where's Zimbabwe's oil ?

 

Arguably, if you have a choice of countries to 'sort out', it's logical to go for the countries who are oil rich first, as stabilising the worldwide supply of such an important yet dwindling resource is as good a reason as any to prioritise one country over another.

 

Given we (USA, UK, France, etc) can't 'sort out' all the world's murdering dictators at once, you have to take on the worst cases first.

 

A nasty dictator who has oil in his armoury trumps a nasty dictator who hasn't.

 

Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted (edited)
Zimbabwe is landlocked, good luck getting permission to use other countries airspace!

 

But, you're right - Just because we can't/won't tackle Mugabe, means we shouldn't tackle anyone. Let the slaughter continue!

 

If push came to shove we could fly over/march through Southwest Africa or Mozambique without any fear. Our failure to come to the rescue of our people in Rhodesia is a national disgrace.

Edited by dune
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted
YOUR people? One day you will emerge from your bedroom into the real world and join the human race.

 

I'm British and they were British therefore they were my people.

 

You have an affinity with Muslims (your people) so why can't it work the other way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barney Trubble

Barney Trubble

Posted
Posted
If push came to shove we could fly over/march through Southwest Africa or Mozambique without any fear. Our failure to come to the rescue of our people in Rhodesia is a national disgrace.

 

I tend to agree but maybe it's about time the African countries attempted to do something for themselves about their problems?

 

I'm sure you're aware as well as anyone on here of the symbolic nature of occupying an African country for even a short time. I personally would take Mugabe out but political history will be used as a stick to beat us with if we do that without the permission of other African countries. In this particular situation we would be damned if we did and damned if we let it continue.

 

I don't think it's anything to do with oil to be honest , but to sit back and watch what's going on there, is nothing short of disgraceful. However, the international moral/ethical community is large and it shouldn't always be left to the UK to do the decent thing, other countries need to get a bit of backbone for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

I note that our last Prime Minister deemed it unnecessary to grace us with his presence at the Commons debate on Libya yesterday.

 

Perhaps he was too busy negotiating Christmas pantomime contracts after his Comic Relief appearance...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted (edited)
I wouldn't recommend that. You humans are an odd species at the best of times

 

True enough. The human race though is probably an improvement on dribbling, bedroom-dwelling troglodytes.

 

Back on message, it's going to be depressingly interesting to watch how Cameron and Johnny English Hague screw up a basically well-meant operation.

Edited by Verbal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Arguably, if you have a choice of countries to 'sort out', it's logical to go for the countries who are oil rich first, as stabilising the worldwide supply of such an important yet dwindling resource is as good a reason as any to prioritise one country over another.

 

Given we (USA, UK, France, etc) can't 'sort out' all the world's murdering dictators at once, you have to take on the worst cases first.

 

A nasty dictator who has oil in his armoury trumps a nasty dictator who hasn't.

 

Simple as that.

 

Simple question.

 

What about China?

 

Or have they got a bigger stick than us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted (edited)

We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't re libya. I believe mugabe should also have been removed. He ruined zimbabwhe /Rhodesia

 

back to Libya. Not only are we trying to stop gadaffi but the we are also trying fighting the constant rhetoric from the reporters.

Since when have they become such knowledgeable military tacticians and warfare strategists?

The media love their free role

1.Build up the story how badly people are treated in libya

2, Start gung ho stories of how we are going to kick gadaffis arse

3. get even more vitriolic when the fisrt strikes are mad

4. Start gobbing off about inocent civilians

5. start questioning the validity of troops being used

6. started spouting off about no exit strategy

7. call for public enquiry ensuring MPS fall on sword

8. Get loads of disinfranchised military staff to comment

9. Go back to no 1 for next conflict

 

Since when has a col been the commander of British forces in afghanistan ? We have brigades and divisions there , The media need to research what a division . brigade, battle group etc is made up of. He might have been the CO of a unit but not in charge of all the British forces on Op Herrick

 

Yeo another rant of the media

 

Have a pop if you must verbal i have my body armour and mark 2 kevlar helmet on

Edited by Viking Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dimond Geezer

Dimond Geezer

Posted
Posted
I note that our last Prime Minister deemed it unnecessary to grace us with his presence at the Commons debate on Libya yesterday.

 

Perhaps he was too busy negotiating Christmas pantomime contracts after his Comic Relief appearance...?

 

Whilst I'm no fan of Bandwagon Dave, I think it's a bit unfair to criticise him for helping out a charity. I know it wasn't funny, but he had a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't re libya. I believe mugabe should also have been removed. He ruined zimbabwhe /Rhodesia

 

back to Libya. Not only are we trying to stop gadaffi but the we are also trying fighting the constant rhetoric from the reporters.

Since when have they become such knowledgeable military tacticians and warfare strategists?

The media love their free role

1.Build up the story how badly people are treated in libya

2, Start gung ho stories of how we are going to kick gadaffis arse

3. get even more vitriolic when the fisrt strikes are mad

4. Start gobbing off about inocent civilians

5. start questioning the validity of troops being used

6. started spouting off about no exit strategy

7. call for public enquiry ensuring MPS fall on sword

8. Get loads of disinfranchised military staff to comment

9. Go back to no 1 for next conflict

 

Since when has a col been the commander of British forces in afghanistan ? We have brigades and divisions there , The media need to research what a division . brigade, battle group etc is made up of. He might have been the CO of a unit but not in charge of all the British forces on Op Herrick

 

Yeo another rant of the media

 

Have a pop if you must verbal i have my body armour and mark 2 kevlar helmet on

 

Most people talk of yelling at their TVs. Apparently your TV yells at you. Odd.

 

I can see the need for body armour, by the way. You swivelly-eyes are so thin-skinned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
Probably because they cost so much to begin with that they are trying to extract as much life out of them as they possibly can before scrapping them.

 

They would probably have to pay some ridiculous sum of money to scrap them in an environmentally friendly manner to appease the greens. This way is a hell of a lot cheaper, one tank of fuel to fly it there (Actually it is probably only half a tank as they didn't want it back)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted
verbal is considerably contraint with his people in Libya getting bombed...

 

This is what I don't get. There are various braches of Islam - Sunni, shi'ite, etc - i'd be interested to know whether his stance is somehow swayed by loyalties to his particular branch of the religion.

 

People in Libya are so grateful to us for coming to their aid and have condemned Russia and China for their stance - which is very good to hear as the Marxists take their stance of non interference in order to capitalise from rogue states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...