oafc0000 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Shame the Ark Royal and them Harrier jets were incautiously junked really. I blame peacenik Clegg. Specially considering how useful the Harrier would be in this type of conflict... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 There is an interesting domestic political dimension to this. If we end up embroiled in another war (i.e. more than just using a few jets to enforce a no-fly zone) that brings more bloodshed and another uncertain ending then I predict we will see the end of either the coalition or the Lib Dem party. Thatcher went to war when her poll rating was very low, and found there's nothing like winning a war to galvanise support for the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Thatcher went to war when her poll rating was very low, and found there's nothing like winning a war to galvanise support for the government. The two situations are not really comparable though. I agree with the theory though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If Gadaffi has invaded Gibralter the comparison would be a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Galtieri invaded the falklands when he did to gain domestic support, same with Mr Hitler and poland. History loves a winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) The two situations are not really comparable though. I agree with the theory though. I think Cameron is rubbing his hands together over this... For me, this is a quick win for him... I don't see this being another Iraq and even if it is, there is UN backing so the burden is more greatly shared... In Joe idiot public's eye he has been strong and has lead the UN... and if it all goes to :censored: it will be the Libs who get it in the neck anyway considering the games the played over Iraq... Edited March 18, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Gaddafi is a clever guy... All this rubbish in the British press that he is losing the plot is crap. Calling a cease fire and asking the Chinese to monitor it is a clever move. Blows the legality of an attack right out of the water unless they can prove he has broke it. Don't get me wrong... I think Gaddafi is a first class c*nt... but he is a cleaver one... Edited March 18, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just from the point of view of saving the people of Benghazi from indiscriminate slaughter, I can't wait for the bombs to start falling, hopefully on Gadaffi's head. would that be dave and nick whove just scrapped all the harriers and the ark royal ? Would be pretty usefull right now wouldnt they .? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) would that be dave and nick whove just scrapped all the harriers and the ark royal ? Would be pretty usefull right now wouldnt they .? Too right... The range between Benghazi and Cyprus (our closest base) is about 1000 miles... That's going to involve a serious amount of air to air refuling to fly effective missions. Edited March 18, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Gaddafi is a clever guy... All this rubbish in the British press that he is losing the plot is crap. Calling a cease fire and asking the Chinese to monitor it is a clever move. Blows the legality of an attack right out of the water unless they can prove he has broke it. Don't get me wrong... I think Gaddafi is a first class c*nt... but he is a cleaver one... No mate. He's a :censored:ing brutal mad-man. Have you not listened to any of his recent ramblings ? He's called a ceasefire because he's got no other option. It's nothing to do with being clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Too right... The range between Benghazi and Cyprus (our closest base) is about 1000 miles... That's going to involve a serious amount of air to air refuling to fly effective missions. Italy have offered 3 bases for British & French planes to fly out of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) And it all kicks off. The US confirms that British and American ships and submarines have fired 110 cruise missiles, while the French have been launching airstrikes. Edited March 19, 2011 by Crusoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Gaddafi is a clever guy... All this rubbish in the British press that he is losing the plot is crap. Calling a cease fire and asking the Chinese to monitor it is a clever move. Blows the legality of an attack right out of the water unless they can prove he has broke it. Don't get me wrong... I think Gaddafi is a first class c*nt... but he is a cleaver one... Easy to say after the event, but it was clearly just an attempt to buy time and make the UN dither a bit while his chaps wandered a bit closer to their objectives. Nowt to do with "legality of attack". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 would that be dave and nick whove just scrapped all the harriers and the ark royal ? Would be pretty usefull right now wouldnt they .? Yup. Very useful. You might even say that an operator such as Gadaffi would feel that little bit more emboldened to use troops against civilians in the first place in the light of the Tory SDSR. Not the only consideration in his mind, but a consideration none the less. Clegg's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 I'm no fan of the government, but I can't imagine Britain losing a small carrier (with one squadron of aircraft known to lack decent hot-weather performance) made the slightest impact on Gadaffi's decision-making. Many, many reasons to blame Cameron and Clegg, but that seems a tiny bit tenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Well so the rebellion kicks off and Gadaffi is thinking, "Who's going to stop me using the army?" and the good old UK is not on the list because we've just reduced our capabilities. And last week we're sending the SAS in with bull:censored: terms of engagement and getting them arrested, which also strengthened Gadaffi's hand. Good on Dave! If we still had Ark Royal, it would've been in the Med way before Gadaffi got nasty. It's not entirely their fault, but they're still shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 "If we still had Ark Royal, it would've been in the Med way before Gadaffi got nasty." Not really sure what you are suggesting here. Are you saying that we should have entered another illegal war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I'm saying Gadaffi would've been less tempted to get nasty. By how much is debatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 And I've got no qualms at all about us getting involved against the obvious bad guy doing bad things, whether we're prissy and sticklers for 'international law' or just straightforwardly right. Let's not forget that Russia and China count for arbiters in international law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I'm saying Gadaffi would've been less tempted to get nasty. By how much is debatable. But you are saying that we either get involved in an illegal war, or we make a half arsed attempt at bullying him into giving in, which will ultimately fail as he has no other option than to fight (and you have already said you are agaqinst half arsed attempts {see Hagues contact squad}). We've already messed up entering one illegal war which will cost us hundreds if not thousands of lives over the future years - I'll be damned if I'm in favour of entering another one. Being honest, I'm not exactly in favour of entering this one at all. Nothing good for us will come from it. I'd be surprised if the opposite didn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) The hang up on legality pisses me off greatly... I want our armed forces to do two things. Defend our territory and citizens and stop the mass murder of people all across the world as much as we possibly can (and not use it as a front for controlling oil) Legality of military action has to be the most fecked up concept going. We have been involved in illegal actions that have been highly praised and have saved many lives. Sierra Leone being a fantastic example. Would you have not intervened in Sierra Leone and let the massacres happen ? Was it wrong to do it just because it was illegal on a technicality. The legal situation can't represent what is right and proper which comes down to your morals. Iraq was a stupid move but its time to put it to bed. Edited March 20, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 So oafc0000, tell us how much more oil we/the West now supposedly own/control since Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I cannot see what the objective of this action in Libya really is. The most likely outcome seems to be a new nation being created in the East. Most of the oil is in the west. We lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Whoever ends up in charge will sell the oil at the best price they can get on the international market. They can't sell it to the camels to spite us. As for the Tom Jones impersonator feeling harder because the mighty Ark Royal wasnt there.... HAHAHAHAHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I cannot see what the objective of this action in Libya really is. A million people saved from indiscriminate slaughter? 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.