Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: jerry on 20 March 2011, 09:20:14
-
"we should not stand aside whilst a dictator murders his own people".hmmm. A valid humanitarian statement but perhaps shouldve been followed by the words "but only if there is our own money at stake" in brackets. So what exactly have we been doing re these middle east leaders for the past how many years ? The west only gets involved if its got a personal stake in the area or there is something to be had. The west was perfectly happy to support saddam for years and Im sure his attitude towards his "people" was no different then than it was when we decided he was a "dictator" with "WMD". Dont get me wrong, all this is perfectly understandable in terms of the geopolitical realities and needs in the world we live in. Just wish that politicians wouldnt keep trying to dress up any military interventions purely as being under a humanitarian guise. (Be even better if we had no need to get in bed with some of these rather unsavoury characters for reasons of need/greed/politics in the first place but that isnt ever going to change).Lets just hope that the decisions taken from now on do not lead to too much more bloodshed and destruction.
-
Aah but Jerry this is the stock in trade of any politician.
International politics (particularly) embraces to art of saying many things - often with great gravitas or sincerity - but when those words are examined they bear (in most cases) no relation to the true intentions of the speaker.
I think this intervention is a mistake.
-
"we should not stand aside whilst a dictator murders his own people".hmmm. A valid humanitarian statement but perhaps shouldve been followed by the words "but only if there is our own money at stake" in brackets. So what exactly have we been doing re these middle east leaders for the past how many years ? The west only gets involved if its got a personal stake in the area or there is something to be had. The west was perfectly happy to support saddam for years and Im sure his attitude towards his "people" was no different then than it was when we decided he was a "dictator" with "WMD". Dont get me wrong, all this is perfectly understandable in terms of the geopolitical realities and needs in the world we live in. Just wish that politicians wouldnt keep trying to dress up any military interventions purely as being under a humanitarian guise. (Be even better if we had no need to get in bed with some of these rather unsavoury characters for reasons of need/greed/politics in the first place but that isnt ever going to change).Lets just hope that the decisions taken from now on do not lead to too much more bloodshed and destruction.
:y :y :y
Cameron compared to Sarcosy is an angel ;D at least he doesnt use the money from Qaddafi for his election campaign (as far as I know) ;D :D
-
besides Bahrein, Saudi Arabia are well known conutries where there is no freedom.. but they obey the rules!
-
"we should not stand aside whilst a dictator murders his own people".hmmm. A valid humanitarian statement but perhaps shouldve been followed by the words "but only if there is our own money at stake" in brackets. So what exactly have we been doing re these middle east leaders for the past how many years ? The west only gets involved if its got a personal stake in the area or there is something to be had. The west was perfectly happy to support saddam for years and Im sure his attitude towards his "people" was no different then than it was when we decided he was a "dictator" with "WMD". Dont get me wrong, all this is perfectly understandable in terms of the geopolitical realities and needs in the world we live in. Just wish that politicians wouldnt keep trying to dress up any military interventions purely as being under a humanitarian guise. (Be even better if we had no need to get in bed with some of these rather unsavoury characters for reasons of need/greed/politics in the first place but that isnt ever going to change).Lets just hope that the decisions taken from now on do not lead to too much more bloodshed and destruction.
Jerry! You'll have us believing politicians are liars next. ::)
-
we all know why we befriended Gaddaffi and why we're going to befriend whoever from the opposition replaces him, the minute Gaddaffi lost control of Libya his worth to the west vanished :o
I understand your reticence Zulu in yet another middle east misadventure, and this will go on for years not the weeks some wishful commentators are saying this time at least we have broader support from Gaddaffi protesters, Arab countries, France - we dont have a mandate for leadership change tho so its really keeping the playing field clear for the rebels to hopefully take power quickly - i doubt it will be quick, necessary? yes. we place such premium on oil, again, like iraq, we have no choice.
nothing else matters to the west - for proof again look at Ivory Coast, Congo, unrest throughout the world where we stand back and do nothing and ask yourself what makes Libya special? answer that and you've just unlocked the key foreign affair strategy of the west :(
(oh, alright, the answers oil :y)
-
I found the pictures of Blair hugging Gadaffi sickening. Gadaffi used us, and Blair to be honest is scum.
-
I found the pictures of Blair hugging Gadaffi sickening. Gadaffi used us, and Blair to be honest is scum.
Not just Blair, Van Rompuy (the unelected EU "President") has recently enjoyed Gaddafi's company. I'm pleased that people like Nigel Farage can seek out hypocrites and hold them up for the world to see.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBMLil4JbI[/media]
:y :y
-
Aah but Jerry this is the stock in trade of any politician.
International politics (particularly) embraces to art of saying many things - often with great gravitas or sincerity - but when those words are examined they bear (in most cases) no relation to the true intentions of the speaker.
I think this intervention is a mistake.
I have to agree, Zulu. I thought it would be just enforcing a no-fly zone, but it seems to have a wider agenda and we appear to be wading into the midst of a civil war. Plus the fact that I have never trusted Cameron... :(
-
I found the pictures of Blair hugging Gadaffi sickening. Gadaffi used us, and Blair to be honest is scum.
Not just Blair, Van Rompuy (the unelected EU "President") has recently enjoyed Gaddafi's company. I'm pleased that people like Nigel Farage can seek out hypocrites and hold them up for the world to see.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBMLil4JbI[/media]
:y :y
Funny the first time Nige - getting a bit old now m8 :(
-
And so it continues. :'(
Boys with (expensive) toys and little oil
-
Aah but Jerry this is the stock in trade of any politician.
International politics (particularly) embraces to art of saying many things - often with great gravitas or sincerity - but when those words are examined they bear (in most cases) no relation to the true intentions of the speaker.
I think this intervention is a mistake.
I have to agree, Zulu. I thought it would be just enforcing a no-fly zone, but it seems to have a wider agenda and we appear to be wading into the midst of a civil war. Plus the fact that I have never trusted Cameron... :(
No, at the last minute, the USA inserted into the UN resolution authorization to take on and destroy land targets that were threatening and destroying the civilian or rebel populations. No 'boots' will be allowed to fight on the ground however :y :y
-
I found the pictures of Blair hugging Gadaffi sickening. Gadaffi used us, and Blair to be honest is scum.
Not just Blair, Van Rompuy (the unelected EU "President") has recently enjoyed Gaddafi's company. I'm pleased that people like Nigel Farage can seek out hypocrites and hold them up for the world to see.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBMLil4JbI[/media]
:y :y
Funny the first time Nige - getting a bit old now m8 :(
Agreed.
Those who speak the most (shout the loudest in the case of NF).....often have the least to say......... ;)
-
Agreed.
Those who speak the most (shout the loudest in the case of NF).....often have the least to say......... ;)
Yeah, Blair shaking hands with Gaddafi is terrible. Van Rompuy having lunch with him, well...I presume that's OK in your book? ::) ::) ::)
-
Aah but Jerry this is the stock in trade of any politician.
International politics (particularly) embraces to art of saying many things - often with great gravitas or sincerity - but when those words are examined they bear (in most cases) no relation to the true intentions of the speaker.
I think this intervention is a mistake.
I have to agree, Zulu. I thought it would be just enforcing a no-fly zone, but it seems to have a wider agenda and we appear to be wading into the midst of a civil war. Plus the fact that I have never trusted Cameron... :(
No, at the last minute, the USA inserted into the UN resolution authorization to take on and destroy land targets that were threatening and destroying the civilian or rebel populations. No 'boots' will be allowed to fight on the ground however :y :y
take on and destroy land targets that were threatening and destroying the civilian or rebel populations
Which, in the case of the regime using heavy military equipment against a less well armed opposition or civilians, is a logical step - however - the very great danger is that when action from stand-off positions does not render the intended targets void (the regime in this case) the next logical step is to have land forces deployed - as fighting from afar is never really successful.
There is no substitute for land warfare unfortunately and despite all the assurances and declared intentions to the contrary, it is more than possible that such interdiction (as presently envisaged) will escalate into a full commitment to theatre.
If we cast our minds back to the fragrant Dr Reid’s rather infamous statement that our forces could deploy to Afghanistan and achieve the stated aim 'without a shot being fired' we can judge whether or not assurances about the proposed operations in Libya have any real substance.
Mission creep in situations such as Libya is the rule rather than the exception sadly.
-
Aah but Jerry this is the stock in trade of any politician.
International politics (particularly) embraces to art of saying many things - often with great gravitas or sincerity - but when those words are examined they bear (in most cases) no relation to the true intentions of the speaker.
I think this intervention is a mistake.
I have to agree, Zulu. I thought it would be just enforcing a no-fly zone, but it seems to have a wider agenda and we appear to be wading into the midst of a civil war. Plus the fact that I have never trusted Cameron... :(
I would agree with that Nick - it's only a matter of time as far as I can see.
Insofar as David Cameron is concerned I've often wondered what lies behind the façade - but whatever it is, its more apparent to me now that he is indeed the natural heir to Tony Blair. (Ooh that had a nice wee ring to it)
-
its been said time and again but its about resources. oil in this case.
but as long as we look after our interests then thats fine with me.
-
its been said time and again but its about resources. oil in this case.
but as long as we look after our interests then thats fine with me.
Look Webby, you don't know nothin see. So shaddupayerface. ;D
-
hahahaha dont you havde some washing up to do? hahaha ;D :y
-
hahahaha dont you havde some washing up to do? hahaha ;D :y
Loads! Been watching cricket and football al day so breakfast, dinner and tea dishes to do. Might leave them 'soaking' till the morning. ;D
-
haahaha i do that. i tell the wife ''ive done the washing up and a few things are in soak'' (basically everything.
then i get the brownie points and the possibility of oral :)
-
haahaha i do that. i tell the wife ''ive done the washing up and a few things are in soak'' (basically everything.
then i get the brownie points and the possibility of oral :)
Your missus is easily pleased ;D
And has a strong stomach by the sound of things. ;D
-
hahaha if only i was being serious ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Aah but Jerry this is the stock in trade of any politician.
International politics (particularly) embraces to art of saying many things - often with great gravitas or sincerity - but when those words are examined they bear (in most cases) no relation to the true intentions of the speaker.
I think this intervention is a mistake.
I have to agree, Zulu. I thought it would be just enforcing a no-fly zone, but it seems to have a wider agenda and we appear to be wading into the midst of a civil war. Plus the fact that I have never trusted Cameron... :(
No, at the last minute, the USA inserted into the UN resolution authorization to take on and destroy land targets that were threatening and destroying the civilian or rebel populations. No 'boots' will be allowed to fight on the ground however :y :y
take on and destroy land targets that were threatening and destroying the civilian or rebel populations
Which, in the case of the regime using heavy military equipment against a less well armed opposition or civilians, is a logical step - however - the very great danger is that when action from stand-off positions does not render the intended targets void (the regime in this case) the next logical step is to have land forces deployed - as fighting from afar is never really successful.
There is no substitute for land warfare unfortunately and despite all the assurances and declared intentions to the contrary, it is more than possible that such interdiction (as presently envisaged) will escalate into a full commitment to theatre.
If we cast our minds back to the fragrant Dr Reid’s rather infamous statement that our forces could deploy to Afghanistan and achieve the stated aim 'without a shot being fired' we can judge whether or not assurances about the proposed operations in Libya have any real substance.
Mission creep in situations such as Libya is the rule rather than the exception sadly.
everyone knew the US wouldn't fly over hostile territory without destroying Libyas anti-aircraft capability.
Everyone also knew that Gaddaffi would use the necessary missile attacks to his own ends showing "concerned" government officials visiting the wounded in hospital, same dismal, laughable and childish tactics Saddam used - no one believes him, least of all his own people, thats the trouble when you're surrounded by yes men - every idea you have, no matter how garbage is put into operation, no one close to the mad Colonel is going to say "'scuse me sir, isnt that idea a bit.....obvious? i really don't think anyone is serioBLAM!!!" thud.
"anyone else think this is a bad idea?"
"we'll get right on it sir - its pure genius!" :o
-
everyone knew the US wouldn't fly over hostile territory without destroying Libyas anti-aircraft capability.
Everyone also knew that Gaddaffi would use the necessary missile attacks to his own ends showing "concerned" government officials visiting the wounded in hospital, same dismal, laughable and childish tactics Saddam used - no one believes him, least of all his own people, thats the trouble when you're surrounded by yes men - every idea you have, no matter how garbage is put into operation, no one close to the mad Colonel is going to say "'scuse me sir, isnt that idea a bit.....obvious? i really don't think anyone is serioBLAM!!!" thud.
"anyone else think this is a bad idea?"
"we'll get right on it sir - its pure genius!" :o
Yep - whatever way you look at it BJ it'll simply end up one massive cluster opps to the poorhouse.
-
I dunno Z, I mean it hasn't always ended badly when we go into the middle east to sort out their problems has it? I mean there was the....no that was bad.....erm, what about the time..........jeesus no that was a $@!£ storm, or how about the one where......no we're still paying for that......... :o :y
-
I dunno Z, I mean it hasn't always ended badly when we go into the middle east to sort out their problems has it? I mean there was the....no that was bad.....erm, what about the time..........jeesus no that was a $@!£ storm, or how about the one where......no we're still paying for that......... :o :y
;D ;D :y
-
I dunno Z, I mean it hasn't always ended badly when we go into the middle east to sort out their problems has it? I mean there was the....no that was bad.....erm, what about the time..........jeesus no that was a $@!£ storm, or how about the one where......no we're still paying for that......... :o :y
Yes it puzzles me that in the current financial climate within Europe – and this country in particular - money as always found to facilitate warfare (or regime chance/liberation howsoever it's tarted up)
There's no doubt that the last 'Labour' government left quite a mess to clear up, but with the scale of fiscal rebalance proposed by the present government (much of it necessary) are there really sufficient funds remaining to permit us to continue to believe that we can actively play an important part in world affairs?
I hope the legions of those in this country who will be directly affected (in their pockets mostly) by the attempts of this government to address the nation’s financial woes will be sensitive to the government’s plight in its concern for international matters as they wait for medical treatment, or in the line to the ‘Job’s Plus Centre’, or for an overcrowded bus or train (as they will have been priced out of private car ownership) or as they shiver with cold at home as many will be obliged to ration their energy use by virtue of the exorbitant cost of using it, destabilisation by this military action of the region we depend upon on so much as an important energy source, or the twisted thinking on climate change.
I’m not suggesting that we should abandon strategic planning all together, but if this country in such a parlous financial state I think we should be more concerned with trying to rectify this – ensuring that our own people are not disadvantaged in the process - rather than empire building in a part of the world that will perhaps never accept our right to exist in the way we presently do - never mind the legitimacy of our attempts to ‘free’ them from tyranny.
It's also quite possible that we're not fully on our financial arses after all, perhaps there's half an arse still hovering above the hopelessness that is absolute destitution – should that be the case, we can still play with the big boys with hope and a clear conscience.
-
that is a good point Z, we always seem to find money to go to war for oil or bail out banks :o
-
that is a good point Z, we always seem to find money to go to war for oil or bail out banks :o
We don't 'find' it, we borrow it, and usually at exhorbitant rates of interest.
-
I dunno Z, I mean it hasn't always ended badly when we go into the middle east to sort out their problems has it? I mean there was the....no that was bad.....erm, what about the time..........jeesus no that was a $@!£ storm, or how about the one where......no we're still paying for that......... :o :y
Yes it puzzles me that in the current financial climate within Europe – and this country in particular - money as always found to facilitate warfare (or regime chance/liberation howsoever it's tarted up)
There's no doubt that the last 'Labour' government left quite a mess to clear up, but with the scale of fiscal rebalance proposed by the present government (much of it necessary) are there really sufficient funds remaining to permit us to continue to believe that we can actively play an important part in world affairs?
I hope the legions of those in this country who will be directly affected (in their pockets mostly) by the attempts of this government to address the nation’s financial woes will be sensitive to the government’s plight in its concern for international matters as they wait for medical treatment, or in the line to the ‘Job’s Plus Centre’, or for an overcrowded bus or train (as they will have been priced out of private car ownership) or as they shiver with cold at home as many will be obliged to ration their energy use by virtue of the exorbitant cost of using it, destabilisation by this military action of the region we depend upon on so much as an important energy source, or the twisted thinking on climate change.
I’m not suggesting that we should abandon strategic planning all together, but if this country in such a parlous financial state I think we should be more concerned with trying to rectify this – ensuring that our own people are not disadvantaged in the process - rather than empire building in a part of the world that will perhaps never accept our right to exist in the way we presently do - never mind the legitimacy of our attempts to ‘free’ them from tyranny.
It's also quite possible that we're not fully on our financial arses after all, perhaps there's half an arse still hovering above the hopelessness that is absolute destitution – should that be the case, we can still play with the big boys with hope and a clear conscience.
All British governments throughout history, of no matter what colour, have had a contingency funds in their budgets for war or defence beyond the usual "Defence Budget". This covers eventualities as we are now in, but of course if a war is intense and long term, like the Second World War, then those funds, and the defence budget run out with the nation having to borrow huge amounts for it to continue.
By 1945 Britain owed £3 billion, basically to the Americans. In 1801 Prime Minster Pitt resigned and Britain had to cease the war with the France due to the government running out of money based on the gold the treasure held, along with problems at home with food supplies and prices! By 1803 the war with France continued as the British government suddenly found the will and money to fight!
We are not starving Zulu as the British populous were during the late 18th century and early 19th, so off we go to war, but it is this time our duty under the terms of the United Nations. Yes we are also protecting our interests in the region, but is that really such a bad thing? Would we not complain if our government allowed events in foreign lands to starve us of the fuel we need, for transport, heating, food distrubution, water and electric distribution, plus the rest?
Yes we can all stand on our principles of being now anti anything that stinks of colonialism, but the reality is we MUST protect our interests!
In anycase our governments will always find the funds for war if necessary ::) ::) :D :D ;)
-
that is a good point Z, we always seem to find money to go to war for oil or bail out banks :o
We don't 'find' it, we borrow it, and usually at exhorbitant rates of interest.
Never a borrower or lender be.
Unless you're bombing Tripoli.
-
I dunno Z, I mean it hasn't always ended badly when we go into the middle east to sort out their problems has it? I mean there was the....no that was bad.....erm, what about the time..........jeesus no that was a $@!£ storm, or how about the one where......no we're still paying for that......... :o :y
Yes it puzzles me that in the current financial climate within Europe – and this country in particular - money as always found to facilitate warfare (or regime chance/liberation howsoever it's tarted up)
There's no doubt that the last 'Labour' government left quite a mess to clear up, but with the scale of fiscal rebalance proposed by the present government (much of it necessary) are there really sufficient funds remaining to permit us to continue to believe that we can actively play an important part in world affairs?
I hope the legions of those in this country who will be directly affected (in their pockets mostly) by the attempts of this government to address the nation’s financial woes will be sensitive to the government’s plight in its concern for international matters as they wait for medical treatment, or in the line to the ‘Job’s Plus Centre’, or for an overcrowded bus or train (as they will have been priced out of private car ownership) or as they shiver with cold at home as many will be obliged to ration their energy use by virtue of the exorbitant cost of using it, destabilisation by this military action of the region we depend upon on so much as an important energy source, or the twisted thinking on climate change.
I’m not suggesting that we should abandon strategic planning all together, but if this country in such a parlous financial state I think we should be more concerned with trying to rectify this – ensuring that our own people are not disadvantaged in the process - rather than empire building in a part of the world that will perhaps never accept our right to exist in the way we presently do - never mind the legitimacy of our attempts to ‘free’ them from tyranny.
It's also quite possible that we're not fully on our financial arses after all, perhaps there's half an arse still hovering above the hopelessness that is absolute destitution – should that be the case, we can still play with the big boys with hope and a clear conscience.
All British governments throughout history, of no matter what colour, have had a contingency funds in their budgets for war or defence beyond the usual "Defence Budget". This covers eventualities as we are now in, but of course if a war is intense and long term, like the Second World War, then those funds, and the defence budget run out with the nation having to borrow huge amounts for it to continue.
By 1945 Britain owed £3 billion, basically to the Americans. In 1801 Prime Minster Pitt resigned and Britain had to cease the war with the France due to the government running out of money based on the gold the treasure held, along with problems at home with food supplies and prices! By 1803 the war with France continued as the British government suddenly found the will and money to fight!
a) We are not starving Zulu as the British populous were during the late 18th century and early 19th, so off we go to war, but 1 .it is this time our duty under the terms of the United Nations.
2.Yes we are also protecting our interests in the region, but is that really such a bad thing?
Would we not complain if our government allowed events in foreign lands 3.to starve us of the fuel we need, for transport, heating, food distrubution, water and electric distribution, plus the rest?
Yes we can all stand on our principles of being now anti anything that stinks of colonialism, but the reality is we MUST protect our interests!
In anycase our governments will always find the funds for war if necessary ::) ::) :D :D ;)
:-? ::) ::)
a) yes Lizzie, Brits are not starving , in fact one of the richest countries in the world (although a serious debit is waiting aside).. keeping this parameter in mind;
1. United nations is nothing more than a bunch of muppet countries that vote on demand (order) .. And everyone knows who is in charge.. >:(
so any operation taking action under this organization is claimed to be lawful which in reality is not!
2.may I remind that countries has borders for a reason..the group of people living inside is called a "nation" which must be somewhat free to an extent.. many countries have "interests" in libya but protecting the interests doesnt require bombing!
(for example libya govt needs to pay us nearly 2 billion $ for completed jobs and have to pay another 15 bil $ after they are completed.. which seems to be evaporated after the bombs)
another fact about the situation is that the other countries interests also collide with yours .. will you also make war with them ? ;)
3. as I commented in paragraph (a) you can also try buying fuel at the "normal" price like us ;D
4. Those war funds unfortunately are always paid by the public but the return is spend by some >:(
-
Yes it puzzles me that in the current financial climate within Europe – and this country in particular - money as always found to facilitate warfare (or regime chance/liberation howsoever it's tarted up)
are there really sufficient funds remaining to permit us to continue to believe that we can actively play an important part in world affairs?
I’m not suggesting that we should abandon strategic planning all together, but if this country in such a parlous financial state I think we should be more concerned with trying to rectify this – ensuring that our own people are not disadvantaged in the process - rather than empire building in a part of the world that will perhaps never accept our right to exist in the way we presently do - never mind the legitimacy of our attempts to ‘free’ them from tyranny.
[/quote]
All British governments throughout history, of no matter what colour, have had a contingency funds in their budgets for war or defence beyond the usual "Defence Budget". This covers eventualities as we are now in, but of course if a war is intense and long term, like the Second World War, then those funds, and the defence budget run out with the nation having to borrow huge amounts for it to continue.
By 1945 Britain owed £3 billion, basically to the Americans. In 1801 Prime Minster Pitt resigned and Britain had to cease the war with the France due to the government running out of money based on the gold the treasure held, along with problems at home with food supplies and prices! By 1803 the war with France continued as the British government suddenly found the will and money to fight!
a) We are not starving Zulu as the British populous were during the late 18th century and early 19th, so off we go to war, but 1 .it is this time our duty under the terms of the United Nations.
2.Yes we are also protecting our interests in the region, but is that really such a bad thing?
Would we not complain if our government allowed events in foreign lands 3.to starve us of the fuel we need, for transport, heating, food distrubution, water and electric distribution, plus the rest?
Yes we can all stand on our principles of being now anti anything that stinks of colonialism, but the reality is we MUST protect our interests!
In anycase our governments will always find the funds for war if necessary ::) ::) :D :D ;)[/quote]
:-? ::) ::)
a) yes Lizzie, Brits are not starving , in fact one of the richest countries in the world (although a serious debit is waiting aside).. keeping this parameter in mind;
1. United nations is nothing more than a bunch of muppet countries that vote on demand (order) .. And everyone knows who is in charge.. >:(
so any operation taking action under this organization is claimed to be lawful which in reality is not!
2.may I remind that countries has borders for a reason..the group of people living inside is called a "nation" which must be somewhat free to an extent.. many countries have "interests" in libya but protecting the interests doesnt require bombing!
(for example libya govt needs to pay us nearly 2 billion $ for completed jobs and have to pay another 15 bil $ after they are completed.. which seems to be evaporated after the bombs)
another fact about the situation is that the other countries interests also collide with yours .. will you also make war with them ? ;)
3. as I commented in paragraph (a) you can also try buying fuel at the "normal" price like us ;D
4. Those war funds unfortunately are always paid by the public but the return is spend by some >:([/quote]
I completely understand where you are coming from Cem, and in many respects I do NOT disagree.
The crucial point you make is about the United Nations. Yes it is of course led by the one and only Superpower, with lesser nations bobbing up and down around them Cannot deny that because it is true! I doubt Cem that the current Libyan "No Fly Zone" would have been agreed to without USA approval, support, and not forgetting practical assistance; who has control of the satellites, the high tech air surveillance, let alone hardware to mount unilateral "operations" in the Middle East and North Africa, let alone everywhere else around the globe?! ::) ::)
However, having said all that the United Nations is far better than anything we have had before! The League of Nations in 1919 failed dismally to ensure WW2 wouldn't happen, with in fact creating the breeding ground to gaurantee it transpired!! The then US President Woodrow Wilson, bless his cotton socks, tried so hard to ensure Europe ceased its endless wars, and especially didn't repeat The Great War. But it all failed.
After WW2 the European Nations, with Britain at the forefront, but the USA leading, decided to join into the "victors club" of the United Nations to stop any chance of major world conflict transpiring again, and have the teeth to bite on any leader of a country who wanted to wage war on every else, including their own people; to maintain peace however, and when ever possible.
Now I have boldly argued with a leading International, Globalization Politics Professor at university on how 'International Law' has no teeth whatsoever. It is a useless power, as it is slow, cumbersome, awkward, and often so hard to enforce without the full agreement of all nations, a rarity in itself! The latest chapter in UN history has yet again shown up all those faults, and how it is military might that really counts, of the USA in particular, that pushes 'law', not impotent courts!
But the UN, USA super nuclear might, and European will has avoided a full blown global conflict for 66 years, so something works! :y :y :y
-
I completely understand where you are coming from Cem, and in many respects I do NOT disagree.
:y :y
The crucial point you make is about the United Nations. Yes it is of course led by the one and only Superpower,
there are 2 other nuclear superpowers which you ignore Lizzie :)
with lesser nations bobbing up and down around them Cannot deny that because it is true! I doubt Cem that the current Libyan "No Fly Zone" would have been agreed to without USA approval,
it would be more peaceful (although needs more patience) to try "No fly zone" first..instead of France directly starting to bomb..And what a coincidence Libya have same aircratfs ;D :D
support, and not forgetting practical assistance; who has control of the satellites, the high tech air surveillance, let alone hardware to mount unilateral "operations" in the Middle East and North Africa, let alone everywhere else around the globe?! ::) ::)
at least 2 other big countries also have that ability (must mention that UK can also do that but being clever let someone spend for it instead ;D) but not interested as they are from another "origin" ..
However, having said all that the United Nations is far better than anything we have had before! The League of Nations in 1919 failed dismally to ensure WW2 wouldn't happen, with in fact creating the breeding ground to gaurantee it transpired!! The then US President Woodrow Wilson, bless his cotton socks, tried so hard to ensure Europe ceased its endless wars, and especially didn't repeat The Great War. But it all failed.
After WW2 the European Nations, with Britain at the forefront, but the USA leading, decided to join into the "victors club" of the United Nations to stop any chance of major world conflict transpiring again, and have the teeth to bite on any leader of a country who wanted to wage war on every else, including their own people; to maintain peace however, and when ever possible.
Now I have boldly argued with a leading International, Globalization Politics Professor at university on how 'International Law' has no teeth whatsoever.
"International laws" teeth are cut by Usa directly..
It is a useless power, as it is slow, cumbersome, awkward, and often so hard to enforce without the full agreement of all nations, a rarity in itself!
if the law makers dont obey themselves at first then there is no law like their famous area historical Texas ;D
The latest chapter in UN history has yet again shown up all those faults, and how it is military might that really counts, of the USA in particular, that pushes 'law', not impotent courts!
But the UN, USA super nuclear might, and European will has avoided a full blown global conflict
sorry Lizzie , but wrong.. Remember Cuba nuclear crysis.. if Russians didnt step back neither you nor me were not talking now :(
for 66 years, so something works
-
I completely understand where you are coming from Cem, and in many respects I do NOT disagree.
:y :y
The crucial point you make is about the United Nations. Yes it is of course led by the one and only Superpower,
there are 2 other nuclear superpowers which you ignore Lizzie :)
with lesser nations bobbing up and down around them Cannot deny that because it is true! I doubt Cem that the current Libyan "No Fly Zone" would have been agreed to without USA approval,
it would be more peaceful (although needs more patience) to try "No fly zone" first..instead of France directly starting to bomb..And what a coincidence Libya have same aircratfs ;D :D
support, and not forgetting practical assistance; who has control of the satellites, the high tech air surveillance, let alone hardware to mount unilateral "operations" in the Middle East and North Africa, let alone everywhere else around the globe?! ::) ::)
at least 2 other big countries also have that ability (must mention that UK can also do that but being clever let someone spend for it instead ;D) but not interested as they are from another "origin" ..
However, having said all that the United Nations is far better than anything we have had before! The League of Nations in 1919 failed dismally to ensure WW2 wouldn't happen, with in fact creating the breeding ground to gaurantee it transpired!! The then US President Woodrow Wilson, bless his cotton socks, tried so hard to ensure Europe ceased its endless wars, and especially didn't repeat The Great War. But it all failed.
After WW2 the European Nations, with Britain at the forefront, but the USA leading, decided to join into the "victors club" of the United Nations to stop any chance of major world conflict transpiring again, and have the teeth to bite on any leader of a country who wanted to wage war on every else, including their own people; to maintain peace however, and when ever possible.
Now I have boldly argued with a leading International, Globalization Politics Professor at university on how 'International Law' has no teeth whatsoever.
"International laws" teeth are cut by Usa directly..
It is a useless power, as it is slow, cumbersome, awkward, and often so hard to enforce without the full agreement of all nations, a rarity in itself!
if the law makers dont obey themselves at first then there is no law like their famous area historical Texas ;D
The latest chapter in UN history has yet again shown up all those faults, and how it is military might that really counts, of the USA in particular, that pushes 'law', not impotent courts!
But the UN, USA super nuclear might, and European will has avoided a full blown global conflict
sorry Lizzie , but wrong.. Remember Cuba nuclear crysis.. if Russians didnt step back neither you nor me were not talking now :(
for 66 years, so something works
Indeed Cem, but it never developed into a full blown global conflict. I did also mention "USA super nuclear might" which had a significant effect on the outcome of the Cuban crisis, which by the way was not the only time the West and East faced nuclear conflict but for the touch of launch codes or not!
As for the satellites and air surveillance, the USA has the monopoly on that. The British and French, to name those I can think of, all may have some ability in those fields, but the USA has the overall control and superiority. Never believe that any of our systems are completely independent. Not even the Russians are free from USA control! That is why I will always want Britain to have independent control over its nuclear capability and retain its launch codes ;)
-
I can't see this bombing working at all. Would any civil war have been curtailed by third party bombing?
The reason we are rushing in despite our huge national debt is to showcase our arms, as simple as that. Don't forget that France is a superpower and the USA's fave ally.
-
I completely understand where you are coming from Cem, and in many respects I do NOT disagree.
:y :y
The crucial point you make is about the United Nations. Yes it is of course led by the one and only Superpower,
there are 2 other nuclear superpowers which you ignore Lizzie :)
with lesser nations bobbing up and down around them Cannot deny that because it is true! I doubt Cem that the current Libyan "No Fly Zone" would have been agreed to without USA approval,
it would be more peaceful (although needs more patience) to try "No fly zone" first..instead of France directly starting to bomb..And what a coincidence Libya have same aircratfs ;D :D
support, and not forgetting practical assistance; who has control of the satellites, the high tech air surveillance, let alone hardware to mount unilateral "operations" in the Middle East and North Africa, let alone everywhere else around the globe?! ::) ::)
at least 2 other big countries also have that ability (must mention that UK can also do that but being clever let someone spend for it instead ;D) but not interested as they are from another "origin" ..
However, having said all that the United Nations is far better than anything we have had before! The League of Nations in 1919 failed dismally to ensure WW2 wouldn't happen, with in fact creating the breeding ground to gaurantee it transpired!! The then US President Woodrow Wilson, bless his cotton socks, tried so hard to ensure Europe ceased its endless wars, and especially didn't repeat The Great War. But it all failed.
After WW2 the European Nations, with Britain at the forefront, but the USA leading, decided to join into the "victors club" of the United Nations to stop any chance of major world conflict transpiring again, and have the teeth to bite on any leader of a country who wanted to wage war on every else, including their own people; to maintain peace however, and when ever possible.
Now I have boldly argued with a leading International, Globalization Politics Professor at university on how 'International Law' has no teeth whatsoever.
"International laws" teeth are cut by Usa directly..
It is a useless power, as it is slow, cumbersome, awkward, and often so hard to enforce without the full agreement of all nations, a rarity in itself!
if the law makers dont obey themselves at first then there is no law like their famous area historical Texas ;D
The latest chapter in UN history has yet again shown up all those faults, and how it is military might that really counts, of the USA in particular, that pushes 'law', not impotent courts!
But the UN, USA super nuclear might, and European will has avoided a full blown global conflict
sorry Lizzie , but wrong.. Remember Cuba nuclear crysis.. if Russians didnt step back neither you nor me were not talking now :(
for 66 years, so something works
Indeed Cem, but it never developed into a full blown global conflict. I did also mention "USA super nuclear might" which had a significant effect on the outcome of the Cuban crisis, which by the way was not the only time the West and East faced nuclear conflict but for the touch of launch codes or not!
As for the satellites and air surveillance, the USA has the monopoly on that. The British and French, to name those I can think of, all may have some ability in those fields, but the USA has the overall control and superiority. 1.Never believe that any of our systems are completely independent. 2.Not even the Russians are free from USA control! That is why I will always want Britain to have independent control over its nuclear capability and retain its launch codes ;)
1. do believe..dont forget Brits are grandfather.. ;D
2. Imo, you read too much usa military magazines ;D
-
I can't see this bombing working at all.
definitely :y
Would any civil war have been curtailed by third party bombing?
never seen an example.. :-/
The reason we are rushing in despite our huge national debt is to showcase our arms, as simple as that. Don't forget that France is a superpower
no.. was a power hundred years ago.. (remember how many hours took Hitler to take them down.. ;D and will never be until they pull back their heads from wine casks ;D ;D
and the USA's fave ally.
but interestingly they build good cars :D :D or not ;D ;D ;D
-
I completely understand where you are coming from Cem, and in many respects I do NOT disagree.
:y :y
The crucial point you make is about the United Nations. Yes it is of course led by the one and only Superpower,
there are 2 other nuclear superpowers which you ignore Lizzie :)
with lesser nations bobbing up and down around them Cannot deny that because it is true! I doubt Cem that the current Libyan "No Fly Zone" would have been agreed to without USA approval,
it would be more peaceful (although needs more patience) to try "No fly zone" first..instead of France directly starting to bomb..And what a coincidence Libya have same aircratfs ;D :D
support, and not forgetting practical assistance; who has control of the satellites, the high tech air surveillance, let alone hardware to mount unilateral "operations" in the Middle East and North Africa, let alone everywhere else around the globe?! ::) ::)
at least 2 other big countries also have that ability (must mention that UK can also do that but being clever let someone spend for it instead ;D) but not interested as they are from another "origin" ..
However, having said all that the United Nations is far better than anything we have had before! The League of Nations in 1919 failed dismally to ensure WW2 wouldn't happen, with in fact creating the breeding ground to gaurantee it transpired!! The then US President Woodrow Wilson, bless his cotton socks, tried so hard to ensure Europe ceased its endless wars, and especially didn't repeat The Great War. But it all failed.
After WW2 the European Nations, with Britain at the forefront, but the USA leading, decided to join into the "victors club" of the United Nations to stop any chance of major world conflict transpiring again, and have the teeth to bite on any leader of a country who wanted to wage war on every else, including their own people; to maintain peace however, and when ever possible.
Now I have boldly argued with a leading International, Globalization Politics Professor at university on how 'International Law' has no teeth whatsoever.
"International laws" teeth are cut by Usa directly..
It is a useless power, as it is slow, cumbersome, awkward, and often so hard to enforce without the full agreement of all nations, a rarity in itself!
if the law makers dont obey themselves at first then there is no law like their famous area historical Texas ;D
The latest chapter in UN history has yet again shown up all those faults, and how it is military might that really counts, of the USA in particular, that pushes 'law', not impotent courts!
But the UN, USA super nuclear might, and European will has avoided a full blown global conflict
sorry Lizzie , but wrong.. Remember Cuba nuclear crysis.. if Russians didnt step back neither you nor me were not talking now :(
for 66 years, so something works
Indeed Cem, but it never developed into a full blown global conflict. I did also mention "USA super nuclear might" which had a significant effect on the outcome of the Cuban crisis, which by the way was not the only time the West and East faced nuclear conflict but for the touch of launch codes or not!
As for the satellites and air surveillance, the USA has the monopoly on that. The British and French, to name those I can think of, all may have some ability in those fields, but the USA has the overall control and superiority. 1.Never believe that any of our systems are completely independent. 2.Not even the Russians are free from USA control! That is why I will always want Britain to have independent control over its nuclear capability and retain its launch codes ;)
1. do believe..dont forget Brits are grandfather.. ;D
2. Imo, you read too much usa military magazines ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Even better I have known officers in the USAAF, with battle experience in Korea and Vietnam, with even a full tour around a USAAF base were others couldn't go! 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)