localzuk Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I wouldn't rely on either of the above to inform you about what is going on in the world. Especially in Libya. The reporters in Tripoli are only allowed to release information that has been vetted by their handlers. So, anything those in Tripoli are saying is to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Gatt Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I believe the US don't really want to get involved - they launched a few missiles, then practically said "Bugger this for a game of soldiers..." and went home...
localzuk Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I believe the US don't really want to get involved - they launched a few missiles, then practically said "Bugger this for a game of soldiers..." and went home... The USA has a serious problem with their electorate at the moment - they don't want to see any more US lives being lost in what many see as wars which they shouldn't be involved in. So, the USA basically wants to set things going, then leave it to us.
Gatt Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I think Sky News is more interested in advertising its iPad app
JJonas Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I wouldn't rely on either of the above to inform you about what is going on in the world. I dont, I am finding twitter handy for getting an idea of what is going on, but that can be a source of misinformation as well.
Gatt Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 The USA has a serious problem with their electorate at the moment - they don't want to see any more US lives being lost in what many see as wars which they shouldn't be involved in. So, the USA basically wants to set things going, then leave it to us. Shades of WW2 - until someone attacked them...
Gatt Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Funny how this starts just as we start complaining about the price of petrol again...
JJonas Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 On the subject of WW2 the weekends bombing missions were the first to be launched from Britain since WW2.
joe90bass Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 On the subject of WW2 the weekends bombing missions were the first to be launched from Britain since WW2. Since the Falklands? Great book details the mission 2
srochford Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Personally, I think this is a very justified mission - protecting civilians from a despot who is trying to wipe out anyone who questions him is precisely what the UN is for. He has lied about ceasefires at least once, and possibly twice now, so military force is necessary to prevent him carrying on. So on that basis, would the invasion of Iraq been OK if we hadn't said anything about WMD but had simply said we're trying to stop a dictator from killing his own people? Why didn't the UN take more action against Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe?
somabc Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 The UN had a no fly zone over Iraq for 12 years to protect the Iraqi people, for all the good it did.
Gatt Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Reports coming in that David Cameron has just sent the following email to Gaddafi
aerospacemango Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Since the Falklands? Great book details the mission Absolutely....Excellent read. Have some rep, Joe!
Robz Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Gadaffi has announced he fully intends to implement a ceasefire.......as soon as he runs out of people to fire at.
TechMonkey Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Personally, yes. Having heard some of the stories of what was happening there and the joy of some locals when it happened I still think it was the right thing to do. How it was done on the other hand is a completely different matter.
TechMonkey Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Since the Falklands? Great book details the mission Yep, a great mix of hurrah for the can do attitude & WTF at some of the bodging bits.
glennda Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 it must have been a huge rock you've been hiding under! was it ayers rock by any chance? thats quite big
teejay Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 So on that basis, would the invasion of Iraq been OK if we hadn't said anything about WMD but had simply said we're trying to stop a dictator from killing his own people? Why didn't the UN take more action against Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? There was no support from other African countries to do this in Zimbabwe, with our colonial background in Africa it would've caused all sort of other problems if we'd intervened, plus we wouldn't have got an UN resolution due to Zimbabwe's links with China. With Libya there is support of the Arab League, including military support.
joe90bass Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Yep, a great mix of hurrah for the can do attitude & WTF at some of the bodging bits. Indeed! I seem to recall there were some close calls with the refuelling @aerospace -cheers!
aerospacemango Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 @aerospace -cheers! My pleasure, buddy! I was in the RAF, so took great interest in that book, as I was on basic training at RAF Swinderby, in 1986, and a Vulcan flew over at 500ft. The ground shook.......... It was almost the best thing I saw, whilst I was in HMForces!
Hightower Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Funny how this starts just as we start complaining about the price of petrol again... You must have been living under a rock too then, because I've been complaining about the price of petrol for the last 2 years!
Rydra Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 A country that fights itself over political control will not get the interest of the UN, and if you look at egypt as a start, that was relatively civil all things considered; for a group of people to go about fighting in the streets, it is a local issue for themselves to work out. In Libya, the rebellion has not been met, tbh from either side with civil manners. They have in the scheme of politics gone straight to throwing things at eachother, and certainly Gadaffi doesn't care if a few civilians get hit along the way. Iraq was entered because there was a potential threat of WMD's is the main reason. This has been questioned repeatedly, and regardless of the end outcome, there was some justification in doing it, just the wrong ones were given. The country was not in a good way. Afganistan was a hostile country, directly harbouring terrorists, and so we all went in. Egypt in the grand scheme of rebellions was civil, and required no major intervention from other parties. Gadaffi has shown to be untrustworthy on promises, has been suspected of strong ties to terrorists in western countries, and has shown no great remorse for the civilian casualties being caused, and seems to be making little/no attempt to minimise them. Therefore, we're going in to protect them. To break up the direct hostilities would require us to get in the middle of a political conflict which is bad, and would result in loss of life on all sides. 1
JJonas Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Since the Falklands? Great book details the mission You might be right there. I was under the impression the Falklands missions were launched from Ascension Island.
aerospacemango Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 You might be right there. I was under the impression the Falklands missions were launched from Ascension Island. Nope...they took off from here....went via Ascension Island, and onto Falklands via re-fuelling with VC-10 tankers (I believe!) It was almost the best thing I saw, whilst I was in HMForces! Best thing I ever saw: Harriers coming into land, on the deck of HMS Ark Royal, in a force 9 gale......Ahhhhhh....Memories!!!
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now