Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.........

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

[Banjax]

that is a good point Z, we always seem to find money to go to war for oil or bail out banks 

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.

[cem_devecioglu]

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.........

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

 :-?

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 

4. Those war funds unfortunately are always paid by the public but the return is spend by some

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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 [/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 

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!  

[cem_devecioglu]

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,

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

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 ) 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


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

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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,

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

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 ) 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


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

[Varche]

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.

[cem_devecioglu]

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,

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

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 ) 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


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.. 

2. Imo, you read too much usa military magazines

[cem_devecioglu]

I can't see this bombing working at all.

definitely

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.. and will never be until they pull back their heads from wine casks



and the USA's fave ally.

but interestingly they build good cars or not

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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,

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

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 ) 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


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.. 

2. Imo, you read too much usa military magazines

  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-)