Thread: The Libyan Crisis

oh, how we want to send our gallant troops into battle

again

after all, that is what they are for, not for helping little old ladies cross the road

and we will give them a heroes welcome when they return home dead

Originally Posted by Norton

# France and Britain have been the main hawks on Libya while Germany has been the most vocal opponent of the bombing campaign. Berlin stunned its allies by abandoning the UK, France, and the US in the security council vote last month that mandated the bombing.

# Berlin has since promised it would commit forces for a humanitarian mission, but Paris and London would be reluctant to let Germany take the lead, fearing it would be overcautious and restrict the mission's scope.

It' hard to understand why the Germans are so reluctant to get out there and fight a little bit of a war ever now and then. It's always gone so well for them in the past.... They have become so pacifist it's blood annoying...maybe they should just disband their army and be like Costa Rica; build more windmills and save the planet. Hard to believe; the same people that gave us the Waffen SS have become the new surrender monkeys...

Good thing we have the Frogs and Brits to take on this third rate Libyan army using 1960ies equipment, and a gang of baboon mercenaries as their front line troops; and now we can now look forward to the new-age Wehrmacht handing out care packages and sprinkling rose petals as they go. I doubt if the Monty Python script writers could have come up with anything this good..

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Norton

# France and Britain have been the main hawks on Libya while Germany has been the most vocal opponent of the bombing campaign. Berlin stunned its allies by abandoning the UK, France, and the US in the security council vote last month that mandated the bombing.

# Berlin has since promised it would commit forces for a humanitarian mission, but Paris and London would be reluctant to let Germany take the lead, fearing it would be overcautious and restrict the mission's scope.

It' hard to understand why the Germans are so reluctant to get out there and fight a little bit of a war ever now and then. It's always gone so well for them in the past.... They have become so pacifist it's blood annoying...maybe they should just disband their army and be like Costa Rica; build more windmills and save the planet. Hard to believe; the same people that gave us the Waffen SS have become the new surrender monkeys...

Good thing we have the Frogs and Brits to take on this third rate Libyan army using 1960ies equipment, and a gang of baboon mercenaries as their front line troops; and now we can now look forward to the new-age Wehrmacht handing out care packages and sprinkling rose petals as they go. I doubt if the Monty Python script writers could have come up with anything this good..

Thing is that after WW2 both Japan and Germany became prosperous by giving up the empire building thing through military means and concentrated on manufacturing and trade. Where as the Yanks and their tag along buddies UK have continued to expand their economic empires through military enforcement. Now China is emerging as a world economic superpower and they have learned the lesson of how an over reliance of military expenditure (deigned to enhance economic footholds in other countries) can actually be counterproductive in the long term. Germany, obviously realizes too that spending too much of their manufacturing wealth on military excursions is not a profitable way to do business. In contrast, USA and UK, two countries with huge debt, continue to rely on expensive military conquests of other nations to extract minimal economic benefits. Its a loosing battle for old imperialist regimes in todays world. Ironically, not so much because the old adage of;-- "to the victor the spoils" doesnt work anymore, but because while imperialistic military nations like USA are spending so much of their (borrowed) wealth on warfare, other nations like China and Germany are getting on with the business of building up their economies through manufacturing and world trade without the economic burden of a huge military budget to support.

Problem now is that the US military machine is such a huge part of their overall domestic and international (failed) economic strategy, politically they cant wind it back. Even though its sending them into bankruptcy. Tag along UK is following them down the drain. France and Germany are very carefully picking which fights they want to back USA on in their own national interest, unlike UK which just goes all the way with USA.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Norton

# France and Britain have been the main hawks on Libya while Germany has been the most vocal opponent of the bombing campaign. Berlin stunned its allies by abandoning the UK, France, and the US in the security council vote last month that mandated the bombing.

# Berlin has since promised it would commit forces for a humanitarian mission, but Paris and London would be reluctant to let Germany take the lead, fearing it would be overcautious and restrict the mission's scope.

It' hard to understand why the Germans are so reluctant to get out there and fight a little bit of a war ever now and then. It's always gone so well for them in the past.... They have become so pacifist it's blood annoying...maybe they should just disband their army and be like Costa Rica; build more windmills and save the planet. Hard to believe; the same people that gave us the Waffen SS have become the new surrender monkeys...

Good thing we have the Frogs and Brits to take on this third rate Libyan army using 1960ies equipment, and a gang of baboon mercenaries as their front line troops; and now we can now look forward to the new-age Wehrmacht handing out care packages and sprinkling rose petals as they go. I doubt if the Monty Python script writers could have come up with anything this good..

I cant GREEN you... That is funny as hell

Originally Posted by Carrabow

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Norton

# France and Britain have been the main hawks on Libya while Germany has been the most vocal opponent of the bombing campaign. Berlin stunned its allies by abandoning the UK, France, and the US in the security council vote last month that mandated the bombing.

# Berlin has since promised it would commit forces for a humanitarian mission, but Paris and London would be reluctant to let Germany take the lead, fearing it would be overcautious and restrict the mission's scope.

It' hard to understand why the Germans are so reluctant to get out there and fight a little bit of a war ever now and then. It's always gone so well for them in the past.... They have become so pacifist it's blood annoying...maybe they should just disband their army and be like Costa Rica; build more windmills and save the planet. Hard to believe; the same people that gave us the Waffen SS have become the new surrender monkeys...

Good thing we have the Frogs and Brits to take on this third rate Libyan army using 1960ies equipment, and a gang of baboon mercenaries as their front line troops; and now we can now look forward to the new-age Wehrmacht handing out care packages and sprinkling rose petals as they go. I doubt if the Monty Python script writers could have come up with anything this good..

I cant GREEN you... That is funny as hell

Funny, unless you live in a country where your standard of living is going down the drain to support a military industrial complex that is providing no economic benefit and sucking the life out of you, your kids and generations to come.

Originally Posted by Panda

Funny, unless you live in a country where your standard of living is going down the drain to support a military industrial complex that is providing no economic benefit and sucking the life out of you, your kids and generations to come.

Yep - they can't see it even though it's staring them right in the face. But they'll find someone esle to blame - the arabs, the chinese - or even the blacks in their own country (an old favorite it seems). Maybe china will buy up all the companies that make insulin - then deny it to the US market. That'd trim the population by around one-third in a few weeks.

UK sends military to Libya, the invasion has become government policy. The UK is at war with Libya.

That is of course dependent on whether "hat backwards willi" is speaking on behalf of the government.

Will our brave boys in Westminster vote for this war?

"The military mission was announced as British forces took part in an attack that sources said heralded a change in Nato tactics.
British and French warplanes carried out “deliberate, multiple strikes” on Gaddafi’s communication hubs. The Royal Navy submarine Triumph also launched Tomahawk cruise missiles."

All this to stop the Libyan Airforce from flying?

"The British personnel will be under strict orders not take part in planning or executing military operations, Mr Hague said: “It’s not boots on the ground, it’s not fighting forces. These are not people to fight on the battlefield, these are people to advise on organisation.”"

Isn't this what our generals normally do in a war situation or are they normally at the front with rifles?

I suppose if they are "armchair generals" they could always have footstools to keep their "boots off the ground"

Oh but the allied countries may need some boots on the ground to protect those rendering humanitarian aid. Purely in self defence you understand.

There is nothing to stop any country stepping outside the UN Security council resolution. USA, UK and the Coalition of The Willing did that in Iraq without any comeback. Its just a matter of selling the justification for the action to the voting public. Maybe Gaddafi has WMDs under his bed?

^
Yep - precendent was set with Kuwait and George Snr. Then Clinton in Bosnia. But not Rwanda.. It's all about the world powers doing WTF they want. And who's going to stop them? They barely veil their public excuses any more.

Originally Posted by Panda

Oh but the allied countries may need some boots on the ground to protect those rendering humanitarian aid. Purely in self defence you understand.

There is nothing to stop any country stepping outside the UN Security council resolution. USA, UK and the Coalition of The Willing did that in Iraq without any comeback. Its just a matter of selling the justification for the action to the voting public. Maybe Gaddafi has WMDs under his bed?

Come on give me a break... nobody can ever get a consensus on anything at the UN. If we had to wait for UN approval to do everything, nothing much would ever get done. If it's really important to US and allies, China or Russia will veto it. If its really important to China or Russia, the US will veto it.

I wonder how the world would change if the veto was taken away and all you needed was a majority vote? They did not have to sell any justification for the invasion of Iraq to me....and I'm part of the voting public too Let's face it; most of the "voting public" have no fucking clue what they want, If they did have a clue most of the people they elect would still be running copy machines in small city hall basement instead of trying to run the world.. Getting rid of SH and his family dictatorship was a good thing to do....with or without WMD's

I never thought the whole WMD thing was necessary to take him out; it's a pity that it was ever used as an excuse because it never was the main issue anyway. It was just used as a bit of bait for those that had no idea where Iraq was (funny how everyone seems to have forgotten that SH did have chemical and biological weapons previously and had used them against Iranian troops and the Kurds...just a little memory jog there.. BTW)

I was highly pissed off when they did not bring him down the first time when they were within spitting distance of Baghdad after vaporizing his army and his highly acclaimed Republican Guards. That's how you do war....take the fuckers out; not screwing around like this Libya nonsense. You can always bring in the peaceful pacifist Germans and TD dictatorship supporters, with their care packages and scented garlands later on.

Getting rid of Gadaffi (an a few others for that matter) would be a good thing; we don't really need an excuse. It's too bad that our elected leaders are lacking the balls to actually lead. Gawd; it's enough to make one want Donald Trumph for POTUS.....ok I'm exaggerating to make a point.....and I'm feeling a bit "hawkish" today....

The UK needs dragging into another war like it needs another million Islamic unfortunates landing and this is fast becoming another "one almighty mess" in the making.

In the meantime I'm nipping down to the local bar to have an ice cold beer and thank my lucky stars I'm here, despite all it's problems Thailand isn't as naff as the UK and it's politicians are.

Originally Posted by koman

Getting rid of Gadaffi (an a few others for that matter) would be a good thing; we don't really need an excuse. It's too bad that our elected leaders are lacking the balls to actually lead. Gawd; it's enough to make one want Donald Trumph for POTUS.....ok I'm exaggerating to make a point.....and I'm feeling a bit "hawkish" today....

And it's great pity the UN and all the so called "leaders" haven't got the balls to spell their intended policy out clearly that is if they have any policy?

Sever the head and the body will die and that would save a lot of time expense and lives but I doubt anyone in our democratic namby pamby governments has the balls to carry it out let alone dare say it.

It's unbelievable that France and the UK can get away with so much BS,

and we thought GW Bush and friends were bad, looks like they were taken over by Sarko and Cameron

Originally Posted by Butterfly

It's unbelievable that France and the UK can get away with so much BS,

and we thought GW Bush and friends were bad, looks like they were taken over by Sarko and Cameron

Why must you always thrash the troops? They are just following orders....


BTW Go get 'em France!!!

Exclusive: From Helmand to Libya: British commander joins rebel fight against Gaddafi - Africa, World - The Independent

To restate the reasons for this new armed invasion.

"Mr Hague insisted that the military advisers did not constitute "boots on the ground", and that it was not necessary to recall Parliament during recess since the policy in Libya had not changed. "This is an expansion of the diplomatic presence we have in Benghazi," Mr Hague said. "It's to help the Transitional National Council in Benghazi with organisational structures, with logistics: how to deliver humanitarian aid, medical supplies."

The plan is to send in a colonel whos has been decorated for managing "the most fierce and sustained periods of action by any UK unit in recent times":

"Armed British troops are being sent to Libya for the first time to help rebels to break the increasingly bloody deadlock in the battle for control of the country. The colonel, a "high-flyer" whose identity cannot be disclosed for security reasons, has been decorated for bravery and leadership in Helmand where troops under his command took part in one of the most fierce and sustained periods of action by any UK unit in recent times. "

Slight mismatch of reported mission and deployed resources.

and here we go, reckon for the beginning of an illegal invasion

Libya: France and Italy to send officers to aid rebels
BBC News - Libya: France and Italy to send officers to aid rebels

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the beginning of an illegal invasion

Not quite. The beginning was when UN passed Resolution 1973. Must wait until Act 6 for invasion. All legal though because the "international community" says it is.

Act 1 - No fly zone.
Act 2 - Bomb Qaddafi ground forces.
Act 3 - Send in UN advisers.
Act 4 - Send in French, Italian trainers.
Act 5 - Libyan gun boat attacks coalition destroyer.
Act 6 - Coalition invades Libya.
Act 7 - Yet to be written.

Originally Posted by OhOh

"Mr Hague insisted that the military advisers did not constitute "boots on the ground", and that it was not necessary to recall Parliament during recess since the policy in Libya had not changed. "This is an expansion of the diplomatic presence we have in Benghazi," Mr Hague said. "It's to help the Transitional National Council in Benghazi with organisational structures, with logistics: how to deliver humanitarian aid, medical supplies."

Hague is the biggest liar in recent times, even trying to out-lie Blair

no wonder he didn't last as conservative leader, even they need someone who can lie convincingly

Originally Posted by koman

You can always bring in the peaceful pacifist Germans and TD dictatorship supporters, with their care packages and scented garlands...

...after the U.S. has started another War.