Xann Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Oooh, another war. No need to scrap these expensive weapons, just use them all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 20, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2011 Aren't some of the planes we're sending over to enforce the no fly zone some of the ones that are being scrapped with no replacements? Indeed. I mean what could we possibly want them for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Aren't some of the planes we're sending over to enforce the no fly zone some of the ones that are being scrapped with no replacements? Indeed. I mean what could we possibly want them for... ...Not to mention HMS Cumberland and HMS Westminster currently on blockade duty, both ships that are due for scrapping without replacement. Our last aircraft carrier Ark Royal is also notable by her absence having been decomissioned a week before this all kicked off...because there are no feasible strategic threats that might require carrier air... Let's not forget the two Nimrod R1 now extended, Sentinel (to be binned after Afghan but vital for Ops like this), the list goes on... I'm sensing that they got the SDSR just a wee bit wrong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlitobrigante Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 think weve done the right thing from the start of all this. We as a world cant really sit back and watch what would undoubtably have unfolded once he got into Bengazi. You get involved, your accused of intefering, if you dont get involved, you risk being witness to another Rwandan type genocide. Difficult decision for a leader to make, particulalry when he knows he has the military assets at hand to do something about it. I personally think we are doing the right thing, that Gaddafis grip now the UN is stepping in is weakening and he wont last 6 months. After that though who knows what comes next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Syria's looking lively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 20, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted March 20, 2011 Syria's looking lively.One of my workmates and his missus have just gone on holiday to Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2011 They might need to get rescued by the USS ponce naval forces gather in Med snicker snicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I called him a ponce, and now I'm calling you one. PONCE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Looking increasingly likely that Yemen is going to descend into civil war over the next few days. If that place falls over there is a good chance the Saudi's will get involved on the ground and the number of pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden/Red Sea will explode for definite. I've heard from a source that Lloyds of London are about to reclassify the entire area from Suez to Mumbai as a war zone which will massively increase the cost of international trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Great question from D. Skinner yesterday "It is easy to get into a war, it's much harder to end it. When will all those nations that are taking part know what the circumstances are for pulling out and ending the war?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I called him a ponce, and now I'm calling you one. PONCE! Perfumed Ponce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Great question from D. Skinner yesterday "It is easy to get into a war, it's much harder to end it. When will all those nations that are taking part know what the circumstances are for pulling out and ending the war?" the plan seems quite simple really , destroy every bit of military equipment Libya have and then sell the new leader a shit load of it once he gets into power .. but seriously no ground troops are going in so not sure that there is any "pulling out" to do .. Was Skinner advocating we just let Gadaffi slaughter his people ? can argue about Nato's selective memory (Zim , Chechnya etc) but going in was probably the correct choice and the only choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 No Tony it was a fair question in the debate, conveniently side stepped by all concerned. You say there are no ground troops but when the American plane crashed earlier it was reported that the pilots were rescued by One has already been recovered by US forces, who say they are in the process of rescuing the other. Also the Iraq thing keeps being swept under the carpet and regime change and any parallels The fact that the allied forces are seemingly sending missiles means that there has to be an aim and a follow up strategy. Something that little of which is being reported. Maybe its just a marketing war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I don't see this as anyway comparable to the iraq invasion, I don't think the west have been plotting for 18 months and lying their people into a war. But less of the punch and judy please, and more focus on the problems in north africa and the middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I don't see this as anyway comparable to the iraq invasion, I don't think the west have been plotting for 18 months and lying their people into a war. Exactly so. But less of the punch and judy please, and more focus on the problems in north africa and the middle east. :nod: Even Miliband is behind it, however the question about what the end state would actually look like is fair one. Obviously there are SF troops from several nations on the ground in Libya and they have been there since we started pulling out the civilians. The rebels are essentially armed civvies with lots of enthusiasm, no training and no command and control. Even if airstikes remove Gaddafi's armour it will still leave a core of trained soldiers facing the rebels and a sprinkling of regulars who defected, creating a defacto stalemate. IMO the deployment of Western ground troops eventually is a given and it will come down to the interpretation of the UN resolution which states no army of "occupation" can be deployed. Occupation in a military sense means taking and holding ground then becoming responsible for its administration. It does not preclude light mobile columns of regular troops taking on and destroying Gaddafi's infantry, then moving on to the next target and leaving rebel forces in control. That's the most likely scenario imo and the resolution was worded very much with that option in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Punch and Judy ? Just because you don't see any sort of parallel between Iraq and this, doesn't mean there aren't any comparisons to be made? As Skinner rightly asks decisions have surely been made about objectives and if they are successful what the next steps will be. One criticism that was often made about Iraq was about the lack of a plan B once the objectives of the Iraq war had been achieved. Just effecting a regime change and then wandering away is surely not the correct cause of actions. Neither is opportunistic selling of arms to a new regime. We are engaged in this now as a leading member of this so called action force. Gadaffi, like many others has obviously committed many mass murders removing him would you would hope lead to a massive improvement in the lives of many, but to achieve that it has to be done with a degree of certainty in a certain way. Why does the West sit back and allow Zimbabwe to continue as it does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 22, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted March 22, 2011 I imagine some boots will already be on the ground, special forces aiding targetting and the like. Perhaps some aiding in the direction of the rebels enthusiasm. Eventually I expect a proper force to enter, but under the banner of a UN Peacekeeping Force, in an attempt to stop the place tearing itself apart as it finds it feet once more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 22, 2011 Even Miliband is behind it, however the question about what the end state would actually look like is fair one. Obviously there are SF troops from several nations on the ground in Libya and they have been there since we started pulling out the civilians. The rebels are essentially armed civvies with lots of enthusiasm, no training and no command and control. Even if airstikes remove Gaddafi's armour it will still leave a core of trained soldiers facing the rebels and a sprinkling of regulars who defected, creating a defacto stalemate. IMO the deployment of Western ground troops eventually is a given and it will come down to the interpretation of the UN resolution which states no army of "occupation" can be deployed. Occupation in a military sense means taking and holding ground then becoming responsible for its administration. It does not preclude light mobile columns of regular troops taking on and destroying Gaddafi's infantry, then moving on to the next target and leaving rebel forces in control. That's the most likely scenario imo and the resolution was worded very much with that option in mind. All of that seems about right to me. Trouble is, from what I've read, I don't think the UN res. allows for that, I don't think "backing a horse" without knowing the nature of the horse is right, I don't think the other Arab Countries would accept it. How do you know when it's over? What would success look like? What do you do if the rebels start with slaughter? Is the UK Gov't right re targetting Ghadaffi, or is the UK Military right? I suspect that in the not too distant, the coalition of forces will just bugger off out of there, leaving a big vacuum for civil war to re-start/ a few (NATO) countries (Fr, UK, US) to carry on, with little or no backing or take the blame for the impending chaos from all sides. Oil, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Why does the West sit back and allow Zimbabwe to continue as it does? Colonial guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Why does the West sit back and allow Zimbabwe to continue as it does? Colonial guilt.OK then, what about bahrain - or was there really a deal with the saudi's that the west could do what they want with libya as long as the sauds could do what they want with bahrain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts