***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Should we get involved in this?
Personally I think not. Anything we get involved with seems to be twisted over the years.
It seems that the US are not even keen to be seen to be pushing for this at the UN.
Perhaps the world can't have it both ways after all. They can't criticise the actions of the US over the years, including perhaps suggesting that 9/11 was "deserved", and then expect them to rush to get involved.
No doubt it will be twisted though, into a tale of how the US stood by while Muslims were slaughtered by mercenaries...
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 23:51
|
Can someone please explain how this would work? Do we just put up a notice saying "Thank you for not flying", or do we patrol Libyan air space and shoot down anything that enters or tries to take off?
I'm surprised we still have any airforce left capable of performing the latter. if that is what it means. And supposing the unrest spreads to the whole Middle East, we can take them all on in a full-scale air war?
|
|
It would be by UN declaration. Policed by AWACS aircraft and enforced by aircraft on Combat Air Patrol - certain flights would be allowed. It worked very well over parts of Iraq for years before the second Gulf War. You need AWACS x 4 or 5 - you need a stack of interceptor aircraft and air-to-air refuelling aircraft. At a push the UK could have managed it a few months ago (on a limited scale) when we had a reasonable number of Harriers.
|
>> Can someone please explain how this would work? Do we just put up a notice
>> saying "Thank you for not flying", or do we patrol Libyan air space and shoot
>> down anything that enters or tries to take off?
>> I'm surprised we still have any airforce left capable of performing the latter. if that
>> is what it means. And supposing the unrest spreads to the whole Middle East, we
>> can take them all on in a full-scale air war?
A UN resolution would be drafted I would think first, then aircraft would be put into position to halt any more ground attacks. The idea is to stop civilians being bombed, so only aircraft that would bomb those on the ground would be stopped. That's if it actually occurs.
|
|
Obama has little or no interest in foreign affairs (or so it seems) - rightly or wrongly backing down on Guantanamo Bay trials, all evidence of a very weak administration. The US have been strangely quiet on recent events in the region.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 13:05
|
>> The US have been strangely quiet on recent events in the region.
Vetoed a UN resolution condemning illegal encroachments by Israel on the West Bank just the other day. It's business as usual.
|
>> Vetoed a UN resolution condemning illegal encroachments by Israel on the West Bank just the
>> other day. It's business as usual.
Disappointing. I'm no fan of Obama, but I did think that he might stand up to the pro-Israel lobbyists a little more. Just goes to show how much power they, and the pro-Israel voters, have in the US.
|
>> Just goes to show how much power they, and the pro-Israel voters, have in the US.<<
Shhhhhush!
|
>> Just goes to show how much power they,
>> and the pro-Israel voters, have in the US.
Jewish population of USA? About 1.71% I think. Hardly significant. You'd think going after African American votes would be a more sensible strategy, by proposing foreign policy to stabilise and enrich Africa.
It's nothing to do with pro-Israel voters Iwould imagine, it's just good old fashioned divide and rule in the Middle East. US governments of all persuasions have always supported Israel, so as both political parties support Israel, there's nothing for either one of them to gain in going after pro-Israel votes.
In terms of the American electorate, Jewish votes are nigh on insignificant, I would imagine.
*Prepares to be proven wrong*
|
You've never heard of the jewish lobby then, tovarishch.
www.rense.com/general27/jlobby.htm
|
Yes, I just think that the American support of Israel is probably more down to a need to have a permanent "friend" in the region which isn't going to flip any minute, and the issue of Israel keeps the people of the world nicely distracted whilst US companies suck all of the oil out of the Middle East.
Rather than some conspiracy theory that 1.71% of the US population is calling the shots globally.
I don't know, it just seems more likely is all.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 14:16
|
>> Rather than some conspiracy theory that 1.71% of the US population is calling the shots
>> globally.
>>
Is this part of that theory?
www.rense.com/general78/jewishpower.htm
|
>>
>> In terms of the American electorate, Jewish votes are nigh on insignificant, I would imagine.
>>
They are, but there are plenty who support their views but aren't jewish. 'America's bible belt is Isreal's safety belt.' Is a phrase I remember hearing to sum it up.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 14:22
|
>> In terms of the American electorate, Jewish votes are nigh on insignificant, I would imagine.
>>
>> *Prepares to be proven wrong*
No expert on American psephology but I think the voters concerned are concentrated in a small number of areas, mostly urban and densely populated. I'm sure I read somewhere there are more Jewish electors in NY than in Tel Aviv but that may be a myth.
Certainly seen as swing voters in a number of significant House of Reps seats and maybe some Senatorial chases as well.
|
Maybe so, Bromps, but hardly significant enough to swing a Presidential election, nor determine foreign policy.
I'm sure a Sinn Fein candidate might well have done well in certain parts of London some years back, but it would hardly have counted in the grand scheme.
|
>> Maybe so, Bromps, but hardly significant enough to swing a Presidential election, nor determine foreign
>> policy.
Don't bet on it. Certainly the number of Jewish voters is small, but the number of Christian voters is very high and there is a lot of backing for Israel among them.
You don't need a huge amount to swing an election, Obama only got 52.9% of the popular vote.
There is no doubt that the pro-Israel lobby carry a lot of weight in the US, that is not a conspiracy theory. I'm not talking about some kind of Zionist New World Order, just Christian voters backing Israel.
|
|
I think this time it's because it's a little less clear cut, the end game doesn't seem quite as clear they also have less leverage than say in Egypt.
|
|
I agree. The buffoon Cameron seems to be hell bent on ramming his greasy physiognomy into their business, though.
|
I disagree - no civilized country can stand aside whilst a mad man slaughters his own people. We should punch his lights out - if we could, Iraq apart this country has a long and distinguished history of involvement in situations of this nature.
|
I tend to agree PU but I would have to say "Zimbabwe" or "North Korea" or...
John
|
|
You're right - Blair would have been better focusing on Zimbabwe if he was intent on having a foreign adventure. What this country has been very good at in the past is picking its battles (with certain exceptions). Cameron ended up on the back foot on this one through no real fault of his own, at the mercy of a poorly informed Foreign Secretary and trial by rolling news.....plus of course binning our aircraft carrier and its 'planes at precisely the wrong time...
|
>> I disagree - no civilized country can stand aside whilst a mad man slaughters his
>> own people. We should punch his lights out - if we could, Iraq apart this
>> country has a long and distinguished history of involvement in situations of this nature.
Bear in mind that there is a strong argument that US involvement in Kuwait is what motivated Bin Laden and hence what led to 9/11.
Maybe it's somebody else's turn to step up.
|
>> I disagree - no civilized country can stand aside whilst a mad man slaughters his
>> own people. We should punch his lights out - if we could, Iraq apart this
>> country has a long and distinguished history of involvement in situations of this nature.
>>
>>
>>
So lets see:
war with:
China..Massacre in Tiananmen Square news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/default.stm
Russia: Genocide in Chechnya news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/575091.stm
And that's for starters...
The UK of course does not massacre its own civililians... Blood ie Sunday? Who said that?
Last edited by: madf on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 14:52
|
>> The UK of course does not massacre its own civililians... Blood ie Sunday? Who said
>> that?
>>
Trying to compare bloody Sunday to massacres in China and Russia or what is happening in Libya is nonsence.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 10:32
|
>> I disagree - no civilized country can stand aside whilst a mad man slaughters his
>> own people. We should punch his lights out - if we could, Iraq apart this
>> country has a long and distinguished history of involvement in situations of this nature.
And its time it stopped. Its nothing to do with us, we are not the worlds policemen.
|
>> And its time it stopped. Its nothing to do with us, we are not the
>> worlds policemen.
It's perhaps a problem that the world doesn't have a policeman (unless you are a tyrant, of course), but I am sick of us being the have-a-go heroes and then having to put up with the fallout and the condemnation.
I say let somebody else do the dirty work
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 18:48
|
Pugugly said:
>> I disagree - no civilized country can stand aside whilst a mad man slaughters his
>> own people. We should punch his lights out - if we could, Iraq apart this
>> country has a long and distinguished history of involvement in situations of this nature.
We got involved when Milosovic was slaughtering people, and rightly so. I think we should do something but stop short of an invasion. People sometimes mention Zimbabwe and other countries. The difference is that Libya has an armed insurrection underway, and there is now broad support from many Arab countries as well as many other countries for a no fly zone. Apparently Kaddaffi slaughtered hundreds of protestors in Benghazi at the start of the uprising. He has paid thugs who murder anyone who does not fight for him. Clearly some if not most of the army are not fighting because they want to but out of fear for their lives.
I am trying to establish a no fly zone at home. I have an invasion of tiny flies. Sticky yellow traps are covered in the blighters. And yet they continue.
|
>Can someone please explain how this would work?
It's quite simple really.
We just put BAA in charge of Libyan airports. They then turn them into shopping malls and pretty soon nothing will be flying.
Kevin...
Last edited by: Kevin on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 13:03
|
|
Or of course some snow....
|
>> >Can someone please explain how this would work?
>>
>> It's quite simple really.
>>
>> We just put BAA in charge of Libyan airports. They then turn them into shopping
>> malls and pretty soon nothing will be flying.
Maybe Iceland could chip in with some volcanic ash...
|
Silly me, it's obviously easy really. For a moment I imagined hundreds of RAF planes taking off round the clock from RN aircraft carriers, and engaging in daring dog-fights over the Libyan sands. Finally the tide turned, and plucky little England had done it again, saving the world and civilisation from another evil dictator. So few .....
But all that is needed is a UN resolution. If only there had been a League of Nations in 1940.
|
|
No it's not easy to set up or enforce a no fly zone, but you asked an that's the mechanics of it(part of it). The practicalities of it are again a different matter.
|
>> Silly me, it's obviously easy really. For a moment I imagined hundreds of RAF planes
>> taking off round the clock from RN aircraft carriers
Biggest problem there is.......
... they have all gone under Government cutbacks.
|
Perhaps we should annex Libya (like the olde days) it's our oil anyway - under their land,
The majority of Libyans wouldn't be any worse orf under British rule (compared to HIM)
:)
|
Perhaps a daft question, but several have mentioned our lack of carriers... But would Harriers really been of any use against Lybian jets? Do they use subsonic jets as well?!
I can see the reason for going in... But why is it always us, if its so important then the rest of Europe should pull their weight as well... I'd have thought it would be easier for the French and Italians to enforce a no fly zone as they are a lot nearer...
|
>> I can see the reason for going in... But why is it always us, if
>> its so important then the rest of Europe should pull their weight as well... I'd
>> have thought it would be easier for the French and Italians to enforce a no
>> fly zone as they are a lot nearer...
Maybe Saudi should have a go...we have sold them enough hardware. Or maybe they need to stockpile that to keep their own population under control.
|
>> Should we get involved in this?
You mean a c4p Task Force? Good idea - that would sort 'em out.
|
Just ring the BBC first, they could do with a few more episodes of Dad's Army.
John
|
|
Who would play who, then?!
|
Iffy is Captain Mainwaring?
I've just thought who Pike is but daren't say!
John
Last edited by: Tooslow on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 19:41
|
Rattle = pike "you stupid boy"
ON = Fraser " doomed - we're doomed"
|
Humph as Joe Warner, the spiv? "'ere, you wanna buy a bike rack?"
John
|
AC = Private Godfrey
Iffy = L/Cpl Jones (Don't panic!)
Bellboy = Pte Walker (well he'd have been a brilliant used car salesman!)
Zero = Warden Hodges
|
>> >> Should we get involved in this?
>>
>> You mean a c4p Task Force? Good idea - that would sort 'em out.
Nah, we'd just get accused of invading for the petrol...
|
|
We would never get there, the pedants would be arguing over the punctuation in the battle orders, and rules of engagement.
|
No
Continental map of Africa.
Map coverage statistics:
Countries fully covered (99.9%): South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mayotte.
Countries partially covered: Nigeria (77%), Morocco (67%)
Connector roads: Major road coverage for seamless routing through Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Dem Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, Tog, Reunion, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. And a detailed street network in major cities.
Roads covered: over 2.1 million km / over 800.000 miles
Points of Interest: over 375.000
We will be ok if it kicks off in Saudi.
Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) v8.65
Download
17.5 MB
NEW MAP!
Detailed map of the Middle east
Map coverage statistics:
countries fully covered (99.9%): Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates
countries partially covered: Oman (80%), Saudi Arabia (83%)
additional information: map caters for navigation from house to house as well as cross border from country to country.
covered roads: over 185,000 km
Points of Interest: over 91,000 POI's
Character support: only Latin
|
Ah well, that's it then. It's off. Shame really, we won the last away match over there.
John
|
>>Roads covered: over 2.1 million km / over 800.000 miles<<
smaller kms in Africa?
Maybe that is why the SAS helicopter landed in the wrong place?
Last edited by: pmh on Wed 9 Mar 11 at 21:30
|
Cameron and Hague should think very hard before launching into another foul-up
The Libyans have, on strength, maybe not all working
85 Transport aircraft
187 Fighters
35 Attack helicopters
216+ Air Defence batteries including 72 AAA missiles on Tracked launchers
Don't know about their ground radars but they have 7 surveillance planes and the logo shows tham as AWACS trye a/c
We can't match any of those numbers in any category SFAIK.
|
They are the worse trained, most useless bunch of men in uniform anywhere on earth and couldn't knocked down a barn door with a nuclear bomb. All this is fairly clear from what we can see.
However, that's really not the point. Its not in our continent, they are not our people, there is immediate threat to us, so we should keep our noses out of it.
But the DH's in charge have already stuck their noses in, gained nothing but ridicule, and more importantly appear to have tried to aid the wrong side. It looks like Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī will win, and we appear to have aided the rebels.
Stability should be the buzz words of those in power, and they appear to have not heard of the word.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 10:31
|
|
Praps (we) want to eject ddafi as much as 'the rebels' and have a more pro-western geezer at the helm like Idris was.
|
|
Choas, that's all that would follow his ejection. Civil war and chaos.
|
No way. Just look at Iraq. What a smooth transition to Western democracy that was/is.
Seems to me that after Empire we tried to impose our model of Monarchy on these countries, and it turned to dictatorship and revolution. No we are trying to impose our current notion of Parliamentary Democracy and this will again turn to dictatorship and revolution.
I have no idea, however, what the answer is.
|
|
Problem for the West is what happens if it turns into mass murder and genocide. Do we stand aside again as did the world in Rwanda and let half a million people get killed once more?
|
>> Do we stand aside again as did the world in Rwanda and let half a
>> million people get killed once more?
Yes, why not?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Mar 11 at 11:36
|
Edit
I meant to add, if Rawandans want to kill Rawandans, where does it say its our job, or right, to interfere?
|
Because if there is anything the rest of the world can do to stop it happening then they should. To do otherwise is wrong.
|
|
I agree CG - there should be an international tribunal with a military wing - Rwanda, Kosovo and the Kurds are all massacres in our living memory, and the "international community" were impotent.
|
>> Because if there is anything the rest of the world can do to stop it
>> happening then they should. To do otherwise is wrong.
And what side do your support? how do you tell who is doing wrong? And how do you stop it, by killing those who are killing others? - because thats what intervention means.
And where do you draw the line? you want us militarily involved in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistahn? and what happens when somewhere else kicks off, you want us in there at the same time?
You'll be back with a huge military army again spread all over the world, one we cant support.
Edit, I am not a pacifist by any means, if we are under threat we should go and kick ass.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Mar 11 at 20:04
|
|
VxFan's Army enforcing the no-fly zone... The Sheikh thinking his Tornado was making a funny noise and flying back to base at just above stall speed... Alanovic and others keeping strictly to speed limits and refusing to take benzedrine to keep them awake... Perro peeling off to make a Kamikaze attack on Tel Aviv hotly pursued by Espada firing missiles a'gogo... N_C feeding irrelevant equations into the navigation equipment... hobby taking exception to the CO's tone when issuing orders... BBD igniting his afterburners, heading straight for the fleshpots of Beirut at Mach 1.7 and making an emergency landing accompanied by his mother-in-law... just a tiny bit like the real thing one cant help thinking.
|
|
You do make me larf Sire :-D
|
But Libya's no joke at all. Gaddafi's as daft as a brush and has done exactly what he liked for decades. As someone has pointed out he has a lot of recent hardware some of which must be operational, and also has some pretty hard and well-trained paramilitary and military personnel although the command structure of the armed forces is in tatters and some units - hard to know how many though - have gone into opposition. The African mercenaries are just low-grade guns for hire and probably want to survive more than anything else.
But the rebels are in the same boat, with fewer advantages and the disadvantage that they have to agree among themselves on what to do, not always easy. Islamist and other vultures are hovering on the sidelines and filtering in. Without a clearly-defined opposition leadership it's impossible for powerful, interested outsiders, like us and the US and the Italians (Libya's former colonial masters) and so on, to offer meaningful support. That seems to be the big stumbling block.
Gaddafi sees himself as a revolutionary and his Libya projected itself as a revolutionary Libya, so it serves the carphound right that the Libyan dissidence is the only one so far that looks anything like a revolution. I think it was Lenin though who commented drily that 'Revolution is not a dinner party.' It's painful to witness such courage and, yes, benevolence being threatened with violent defeat. Looks a bit ugly at the moment but one must hope for the best in the long run.
|
VxFan's Army enforcing the no-fly zone...
And AC dune hopping urbanely in his souped up Sopwith Pup overtaking the other mimsing carphounds !
|
|
Alas he has such bad eyesight now its nose down, tail up IN the dune.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12707222
Lucky they didn't scrap those
|
|
Enforcing the NFZ 2: Zero's sausage-like finger slipping when trying to text his wife, while flying, with a recipe for camel sweetbreads in date sauce, and accidentally loosing off 3,000 rounds of 20mm in three seconds with his puff-the-magic-dragon electric Gatling making a sound like the voice of God bawling WHOOPS! (and vaporising half a camel train of innocent Hajjis and salt traders on the way from Mauritania to Medina)... PU muttering that the legal consequences may involve certain complications and are best not discussed over open radio, Roger and out...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 11 Mar 11 at 03:30
|
In any case we have missed the bus now. These things give a brief opportunity for decisive intervention, but it is now too late unless we want to initiate a major conflict. Gaddaffi has seized back the initiative, and his hard core of supporters are now so heavily implicated in the reprisals that they have little incentive to defect any more.
Democratic governments really do need to do a bit more homework on the subject of the "bunker effect", starting with AH in 1945.
|
>> In any case we have missed the bus now. These things give a brief opportunity
>> for decisive intervention, but it is now too late unless we want to initiate a
>> major conflict. Gaddaffi has seized back the initiative, and his hard core of supporters are
>> now so heavily implicated in the reprisals that they have little incentive to defect any
>> more.
>> Democratic governments really do need to do a bit more homework on the subject of
>> the "bunker effect", starting with AH in 1945.
The French have been caught on the hop, came out recognising the rebel government, just as Gadafi got on top.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00f5jys/Politics_UK_11_03_2011_Taming_the_Banks__Intervening_in_Libya__The_Royal_Family/
All you ever needed to know about "no fly" zones the general and the specific in a brilliant little programme from the BBC - no fuss, no partisan politics. Series soon to be scrapped.
|
It is good news that Gaddafi is now claiming that he is only trying to kill terrorists.
Presumably he will soon remember that he ordered the Lockerbie bombing, and decide to shoot himself in the head.
|
Now you see we have the burning question.
The leadership of the rebels, are some of the ex members of the Gadaffi government. Who presumably rubber stamped and help planned the his "terrorost" acts.
So who are the bad guys here? The rebels? the old guard? existing government? infiltrators? religious fanatics?
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Mar 11 at 18:34
|
|
Well, this country has been complicit in torture. I wouldnt get too bogged down in who is and isnt a bad guy.
|
|
Its kinda important to know what side you are batting for.
|
|
Whoever has the oil I expect. Im suprised you couldnt work that much out.
|
No-fly zone over Libya - Cliff Pope
