JJonas Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Ah went via Ascension Island so not a direct flight then.
joe90bass Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 semantics lol http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png 1
Disease Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 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. In that case we should cease sending aid to the african nations, giving them money is so colonial.
36Degrees 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. Sounds like a lot of our wars...
36Degrees Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Nope...they took off from here....went via Ascension Island, and onto Falklands via re-fuelling with VC-10 tankers (I believe!) Victors not VC-10s. I seem to recall there was a "daisy chain" of sorts, with some Victors refuelling the others that would then refuel the Vulcan closest to the Falklands.
HallX Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 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! I was there :-) I also grew up 4 miles from RAF Finningly when the Vulcans were based there. No wonder our school always needed new windows lol
JJonas Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 I was there :-) I also grew up 4 miles from RAF Finningly when the Vulcans were based there. No wonder our school always needed new windows lol Amazing aircraft.
witch Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 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. Except that we seem to be doing exactly that now - how long will it be before one of Gadaffis military guys respond by blowing a jet out of the air? Then what?
JJonas Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Libya February 17th | Keeping with the Libyan revolution as it happens
aerospacemango Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 If anyone can explain to me how it is that we let Tunisia and Egypt do things their own way, for around 2 months, and yet just a couple of weeks into the Libya protests, we rush in with tactical airstrikes???
flyinghaggis Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 If anyone can explain to me how it is that we let Tunisia and Egypt do things their own way, for around 2 months, and yet just a couple of weeks into the Libya protests, we rush in with tactical airstrikes??? I can only assume there have been deals in smoke filled rooms with the other Arab State leaders who have all privately agreed they want rid of Gaddafi. Whilst in order to keep face they publicy denounce the evil actions of the decadent imperialist West Speaking of which did anyone else ROFL after seeing our own politicians/armed forces commanders saying that there are no plans to attack Gaddafi or instigate regime change. Then just shortly afterwards we launch a Tomahawk Missile right through his front door. You couldn't write this stuff... honestly
Rawns Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) The Tunisia and Egypt governments did not order their Army/Air-force to shoot/bomb unarmed protesters dead. That's the kind of action that requires a response like the UN have actioned. Even Parliament have "approved it" (even though hit started before they had a chance to) - 500+ for and 13 against? Edited March 22, 2011 by Rawns
Gatt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Sky News are interviewing the libyian Govt spokes guy who's adamant that we (the coalition) deliberataly bombed a bunch of civilians last night, but cannot back it up with any facts or proof...
localzuk Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Sky News are interviewing the libyian Govt spokes guy who's adamant that we (the coalition) deliberataly bombed a bunch of civilians last night, but cannot back it up with any facts or proof... Ah, reminds me of that old Iraqi minister who consistently went on TV during the invasion to say that there was no invasion, then that they were winning...
Gatt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Lol, yeah I remember him.. "There are no tanks in Baghdad".."No tanks here..." No Ta...Sh*t Tanks!!!"
Gatt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 here we go... We Love the Iraqi Information Minister
JJonas Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Lol, yeah I remember him.. "There are no tanks in Baghdad".."No tanks here..." No Ta...Sh*t Tanks!!!" as an American tank rolled across a bridge behind him. What was his nickname?
Gatt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 as an American tank rolled across a bridge behind him. What was his nickname? Comical Ali... 1
CAM Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 That Iraqi guy was a legend. And he survived somehow!
localzuk Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 That Iraqi guy was a legend. And he survived somehow! He surrendered/was captured in 2003 and they questioned him and let him go, lol. Obviously not exactly a threat...
Rydra Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 as an American tank rolled across a bridge behind him. What was his nickname? I wanted to find a photo of that, I saw it rebroadcasted at the time but can't find it now. Would make a great (de)motivational poster.
Gatt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Not been able to find anything about that scene - pictures or videos...
somabc Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Except that we seem to be doing exactly that now - how long will it be before one of Gadaffis military guys respond by blowing a jet out of the air? Then what? Why has the UN intervened in Libya but not in Bahrain / Saudi Arabia / North Korea? Well the west has been dying to get rid of Col Qaddafi for years so they see a chance and have taken it. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are still allies to the west while a war with North Korea is a complete non-starter. A war with Libya would be fairly easy to fight as it is very close to Europe, the terrain is sparsely populated desert which is ideal for picking off targets on the ground and the Libyan Army is poorly trained and poorly armed. There have been 'tit for tat' acts of war between the West and Libya for 40 years and as for Pan Am 103 there are also numerous examples of the West shooting down passenger planes which in no way excuse murder but do help to explain why it happened in the first place. Libyan Passenger Jet shot down by Israel (108 people killed) Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Iranian Passenger Jet shot down by USA (290 people killed) Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Libyan military aircraft -2 fighter Jets destroyed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981) Another 2 Fighter Jets Destroyed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989) Libya's motives for destroying Pan Am 103 are set out in Wikipedia - The motive that is generally attributed to Libya can be traced back to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra, the whole of which Libya claimed as its territorial waters. First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra, followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986. The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the 5 April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230. The U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin provided U.S. president Ronald Reagan with the justification for USAF warplanes to launch Operation El Dorado Canyon on 15 April 1986 from British bases —the first U.S. military strikes from Britain since World War II—against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. The Libyan government claimed the air strikes killed Hanna, a baby girl Gaddafi claimed he adopted (her reported age has varied between 15 months and seven years). To avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan. The U.S. in turn encouraged and aided the Chadian National Armed Forces (FANT) by supplying satellite intelligence during the Battle of Maaten al-Sarra. The attack resulted in a devastating defeat for Gaddafi's forces, following which he had to accede to a ceasefire ending the Chadian-Libyan conflict and his dreams of African dominance. Gaddafi blamed the defeat on French and U.S. "aggression against Libya". The U.S. did not conceal its satisfaction over the Libyan defeat with an official stating that "We basically jump for joy every time the Chadians ding the Libyans". The result was Gaddafi's lingering animosity against the two countries which led to Libyan support for the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772 Edited March 22, 2011 by somabc
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