More than 110 cruise missiles fired at Lybia

missile

Heard on the news these Tornadoes cost circa £200,000 a day to fly, before they even fire a shot / rocket in anger

1984ReturnsForReal_2

missile wrote: »

Heard on the news these Tornadoes cost circa £200,000 a day to fly, before they even fire a shot / rocket in anger

Much cheaper to have a carrier & some Harriers based within a few miles.....

Oh, wait............... ****head Cameron got rid & most of MSE applauded the move.... How short-sighted...

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Degenerate wrote: »

They kind of have a point, in that one would expect a "no fly zone" to involve shooting down Gaddafi's aircraft if they enter it, not lobbing hundreds of missiles at targets on the ground.

Authorises member states that have notified the secretary-general, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the secretary-general, to take all necessary measures*, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the member states concerned to inform the secretary-general immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;


*including bombing the **** out of anything they like

Seems legally fine to me. Nothing to moan about & 100% legit.

missile

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Seems legally fine to me. Nothing to moan about & 100% legit.

Perfectly legal for those countries who control the UN. Just like going to war to eliminate WMD, oh wait there were none .... and they new that.

chewmylegoff

i'm really fed up of this, there is no legitimate reason for us to intervene in libya's internal affairs. the pre-text of protecting civilians is nonsense. mass genocide in other countries is met with, at best, a few UN peacekeepers who are powerless to actually intervene in any way. yet for some reason we're talking about airstrikes against the military forces of only one side in this conflict. essentially we're giving the rebel forces total air superiority.

the real reason for our intervention, oil, is so pathetically transparent.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

1. Securing oil supplies
2. See #1.

Overthrowing a particularly nasty despot and supporter of international terrorism would be merely a happy side-effect.

If you are right Gen (and it's a distinct possibility) then this is nothing more than an economic power play. An attempt to secure resources.

In an era where more countries compete for limited resources this sort of situation is likely to occur again.

Now imagine a situation 10 to 15 years from now, where the next generation of UAV provide Western military powers the ability to operate thousands of miles away from home without risking the loss of personnel, and what then? Would the West enforce influence over a much wider range of countries?

Whatever we might personally desire there needs to be some kind of checks and balances to world power.

amcluesent

Obviously we're being lied to be the elite and members of the Bullingdon.

Since Mohammedans don't 'do' democracy, in the event of a regime change in Tripoli we'd have to install another strong-man as puppet head of state and then train his secret police. So not much further forward than sticking with Gadaffiduck.

I'd speculate that the CIA got wind of a wheeze to nationalise the oil installations on Libya, followed by a strategic alliance with China to put 100% of the oil production their way in return for a complete refresh of armaments inc. missiles for Gadaffi which could be fired across into Europe. c.f. Cuban missile crisis.

The risk to oil supplies with Chinese strategic alliance would get the USA to move. The threat to Europe from Islamic hot-heads in sandy hell-holes would be enough to get the notoriously deceitful French into the coalition.

We'll be seeing resource wars start all-over with the combatants mostly proxies for China and the USA.

Obviously we're post peak-oil and the nuclear bother in Japan will be covered up so as not to prevent a rapid build-out of nuclear capacity, certainly the case in China which will build 100 reactors minimum.

GDB2222

Ron2256 wrote: »

110 Tomahawk missiles at $1.4 Million each, that's a fair bit more than what red nose day raised on Friday.
Happy days for the arms industry.

That's not an awful lot of money for just one. If we all clubbed together, we could afford one. What would people like as the target?

GDB2222

amcluesent wrote: »

Obviously we're being lied to be the elite.

Since Mohammedans don't 'do' democracy, in the event of a regime change in Tripoli we'd have to install another strong-man as puppet head of state and then train his secret police. So not much further forward than sticking with Gadaffiduck.

I'd speculate that the CIA got wind of a wheeze to nationalise the oil installations on Libya, followed by a strategic alliance with China to put 100% of the oil production their way in return for a complete refresh of armaments inc. missiles for Gadaffi which could be fired across into Europe. c.f. Cuban missile crisis.

The risk to oil supplies with Chinese strategic alliance would get the USA to move. The threat to Europe from Islamic hot-heads in sandy hell-holes would be enough to get the notoriously deceitful French into the coalition.

Quick question, Amcluesent - is there anyone you are not prejudiced against?

amcluesent

>What would people like as the target?<

Clown up in Kirkaldy! Put one in through the window. "Hoots!" BlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM

>Quick question, Amcluesent - is there anyone you are not prejudiced against?<

I'm just a wee bit of misanthrope I guess...