Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
David Cameron threatened Colonel Gaddafi with military action last night, promising a no-fly zone and arms shipments to his enemies.
The Prime Minister even suggested he could send British troops into Libya as a peacekeeping force to stop Gaddafi's henchmen massacring democracy campaigners.
At a National Security Council meeting yesterday morning, he ordered military chiefs to draw up plans for the no-fly zone. If Gaddafi turned his air force on the rebels, RAF warplanes would be able to intervene
Not sure where he will get his troops,planes and ships from following his sweeping cuts in defence.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The troops and aircraft are available for an intervention with the aircraft operating out of Cyprus or possibly Malta with permission.
This is exactly the kind of scenario for which the Elizabeth Class carriers would be invaluable and would make the operations more effective.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Camerons previous statements
We will always be sceptical of grand schemes to reshape the world
In the last 5 years we have suffered from 2 qualities.that have previously been lacking in foreign policy..humility and patience.
We have made too many commitments without having the resources to back them up.
I bet he longs for the time he was in opposition and words came cheaply but once elected and on the worlds stage with international pressure bearing down upon him he has changed his tune.
Lets now wait for a Thatcher type U-turn on him scrapping the fleet just as she did when faced with the Falklands conflict.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have always said that Defence is the only part of public spending that should not be cut but increased instead.
The Labour government left that department in an even greater mess than any other with underfunded commitments and overstretched and abused forces.
I hope he does see the folly of cutting defence spending, it would be the right thing to do. He would have to find cuts to other budgets instead though, including overseas aid and the NHS that were wrongly protected.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
I'm going for a lie down...BarryW is agreeing with me...I've come over all queer...
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ah Marek, but do you agree with all I said...
Do you agree with me that the NHS and overseas aid budgets should be cut so the right amount can be spent on defence?
Knowing you I think you can get up.....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I could not find anything on the news where the PM is supposed to have promised arms shipments to anyone in Libya since the uproar started there. Where did the news come from?
I couldn't find anything about sending British soildiers there either.
I strongly doubt that our Country will get involved in any fighting in Libya. The Libyan government has been asked not to cause casualties among the civilian population.
Mr. Gaddafi has asked the revolutionaries to stop their revolution, and these have asked Mr. Gaddafi to leave office.
At the most an outside government could offer mediation, but that's about all, as well as inviting all sides involved to refrain from any action that could harm civilians.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Bary, the uproar in Libya does not sanction the end to Parliament's decision to reduce arms-spending.
It's more likely that Britain will decide to review the export of arms to other countries.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I did not say that Alexander.
I have said all along, Libya or no Libya, that cutting Defence spending is wrong. The Libya crisis is just confirmation that cutting defence is a folly.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
How can the Libya crises confirm that reducing defence spending is wrong? Unless one assumes that British soldiers must get involved in every uproar that breaks out all over the world.
There must not be a return to the Blair-days of aerial bombings over other people's cities and sending in British soldiers to fight other people's wars.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The ability to park a carrier off the coast of Libya, along with the ability to deploy troops would be invaluable in protecting British citizens in that country, evacuating where necessary and in helping influence the outcome, enforcing no-fly zone on Gadaffi to help prevent attrocities etc. etc.
Of course if you take the view that Britain should not exercise any influence for the good on world events and should have no way to project power you would think differently. I dont.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I forgot to mention Alexander. Your post #7
There are reports of what Cameron said in The Times but its behind a paywall so I cant give you a link.
It was also reported in the Mail.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i doubt that the government are mad enough to get involved in libya except for a special forces effort to rescue our civilians.
any military involvement would make matters worse there, a civil war seems on the cards.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Where are all the Harriers now we need them.AT this time I am reading the Desider,this a magazine that comes out from time to time on the defence equipment and support .This one is dated the 10Sep 2010 and this is what it is telling us about the Harrier "Harrier -battleworthy for the next generation."
The GR9 UPGRADE PROGRAMME has nearly completed allowing the Harrier fleet to move to a single standard of software. It has been Tried and severely tested.
The Harrier is now ready to show off its versatility into the next generation.
And what do the blues do to this great war plane they cut it up.
Barry be carfull how you get back on this one,I have it all in front of me.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I was not aware that we need the Harriers, we are not at war.
Britain's defence capabilities are not too weak, and the military chiefs of the Army and Navy stated last year that the Government should cut spending on the RAF, and the Government acted upon this advice.
To get involved in Libya militarily, other than to rescue British civilians which is something totally differnt and doesn't imply shooting at anyone unless attacked - hopefully those operations are concluded by now - would be total madness, and could have repercussions all over the Arab world.
It could lead to massive anti-western sentiments in neighbouring countries with unimaginable consequences. Incidentally, that situation would lead to an economic crisis with oil prices going up and possibly oil supplies being cut off!
And what then?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander, what HMG is suggesting is to prevent Gadaffi from committing atrocaties on his civilian population. A 'no-fly zone' and possible limited use of ground forces plus possibly arming the rebels is quite reasonable and would not have the effect you suggest. We are not talking an Iraqi style intervention here.
Vic - the GR9 Harrier is a ground attack aircraft and lacks the air to air radar needed for policing a no-fly zone. The Sea Harrier version was equipped for the air to air role and that was done away with by Labour long before the latest cuts. Besides, I am not arguing with you, I agree and have said many times that defence should not be cut, the only thing that should not be.
Worth adding - I have just seen a report. No 10 have confirmed that this is a contingency plan and a last resort option. It is hoped that Gadafffi will have more sense than to 'fight to the end' and perhaps kill innocent civilians.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the interview that the colonel gave to the b.b.c. yesterday was like a you tube send up video.
jeremy bowen asked a straightforward question, he just sat there for a while, then giggled and asked him what the question was.
apparently all is peace and light in libya, no rebellion and all the citizens love him, must be true the nation's leader has said so.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, what you suggest about British military intervention in Libya and arming rebels there is in no way justifiable. 'Committing atorcities against civilians' seems to be the magical key-phrase nowadays to try to justify any intervention all over the world.
Britain recognised the Libyan government and had relations with Libya by way of its governmental authorities, so to arm the rebels would be a blatant act of hypocrisy and a breach of international law, and could be a precedent to intervene anywhere in the world and to send arms to anyone in the name of just about anything!
You have not even any idea who the oposition are in Libya, and there are no past atrocities of the Libyan government against Libians for any oposition to shout about in the first place.
If any oposition in Libya wants some other form of government, then they should state their views peacefully and NOT bank on Britain getting involved with soldiers or arms supplies.
The British Nation has no constitutional obligation to get involved in Libya's armed controversy. I think we should start looking at the Constitution before anyone starts beating war-drums in Britain and expecting Britain to get militarily involved in other countries problems.
As you yesterday openly insisted on the Forum that I know nothing about economy, I permit myself to openly invite you to read the British Constitution, as you seem to make up the rules as you go along, Barry!
Libya is nothing to do with this country apart from oil imports. That is a trade item and only a trade item. We have no right to get involved in Libya's internal affairs. If they want to fight amongst themselves that is there business.
It is not our desire or job to get involved, even on humanitarian grounds let the French or Italians, or even the Germans . do the dirty work, just for a change. What is this compulsion for this country to stick its nose into something which has bugger all to do with us?? Bloody Do Gooders!!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr Long I think you might have a good point there, but let us not forget what happen in Scotland years ago, and the lives that were lost.