A post - and a controvercial one!
Wow, it's been ages since I posted anything of substance here...
But for a change I have something to say.
Libya:
Should we get involved? No!
Why not? Well I have a number of reasons.
1) It's none of our fucking business!
This is a civil war between the Libyan people. What do you think will happen if the US 6th fleet imposes a "no-fly-zone" over Libya? Will that improve things? well it might actually even the odds a little, I suppose, but the rebels have army units on their side, I'm sure they must have air force units on their side too...
Let me draw an example from History. What would have happened if, during the American civil war, Britain and France (then the greatest world powers with absolute Naval supremacy) had said "Sorry Mr Lincoln, but your use of your superior sea power is breaking international law and so we are going to stop you using it"? The US Navy landed troops all along the Confederate coast from Norfolk VA to Brownsville TX, and all the way up the Mississippi river. This effectively crippled the south, denying them sea ports they needed to bring in munitions and supplies, as they lacked much of the heavy industry necessary to create them. If Britain and France had intervened, the war would have lasted a lot longer, many more lives would have been lost and the South would still have lost...
The same applies here. If Britain, France and the US intervene, it will prolong the civil war by evening the odds. More lives will be lost on both sides and the country will end up devastated.
2) Cameron and Obama would be hypocrites. David Cameron is in power in the UK ONLY because Tony Blair joined in "Dubya"'s war in Iraq. That war was then declared illegal, and Blair was kicked out. To remove him from office over that one issue when he was, in fact, the best Prime Minister this country has had since WWII, was just plain idiotic, and I think the general public are slowly beginning to realise that, as the mess Brown made is being made worse by the current administration!
So, for Cameron to take us to war in Libya when Blair was so recently hounded out of office for taking us to war in Iraq should in fact be political suicide. If it turns out not to be then there is something very very wrong with this country!
3) I'm pretty sure we can't actually afford a war right now.
Every time a fighter aircraft takes off it cost the country several hundred thousand pounds. If it fires a weapon, that weapon has to be replaced at a cost of several thousand pounds. If the 'plane is shot down it has to be replaced at the cost of several million. And of course the pilot is irreplaceable.
Given that the government has just announced massive cuts to all branches of the military, I'm pretty sure the RAF will be stating quite categorically that they do not have the necessary equipment to enforce a no-fly zone. The Royal Navy has just had it's one "through-deck cruiser" - what has passed for an aircraft carrier since the 1970s - scrapped, and is now incapable of projecting air power anywhere (other than helicopters from destroyers) until the new carriers are commissioned in ten years time!
And cuts mean that morale is low. So, getting involved in a war now would be madness from the military's point of view!
That's it. Take it or leave it.
I don't claim to be right, but I do claim to have a valid opinion!
But for a change I have something to say.
Libya:
Should we get involved? No!
Why not? Well I have a number of reasons.
1) It's none of our fucking business!
This is a civil war between the Libyan people. What do you think will happen if the US 6th fleet imposes a "no-fly-zone" over Libya? Will that improve things? well it might actually even the odds a little, I suppose, but the rebels have army units on their side, I'm sure they must have air force units on their side too...
Let me draw an example from History. What would have happened if, during the American civil war, Britain and France (then the greatest world powers with absolute Naval supremacy) had said "Sorry Mr Lincoln, but your use of your superior sea power is breaking international law and so we are going to stop you using it"? The US Navy landed troops all along the Confederate coast from Norfolk VA to Brownsville TX, and all the way up the Mississippi river. This effectively crippled the south, denying them sea ports they needed to bring in munitions and supplies, as they lacked much of the heavy industry necessary to create them. If Britain and France had intervened, the war would have lasted a lot longer, many more lives would have been lost and the South would still have lost...
The same applies here. If Britain, France and the US intervene, it will prolong the civil war by evening the odds. More lives will be lost on both sides and the country will end up devastated.
2) Cameron and Obama would be hypocrites. David Cameron is in power in the UK ONLY because Tony Blair joined in "Dubya"'s war in Iraq. That war was then declared illegal, and Blair was kicked out. To remove him from office over that one issue when he was, in fact, the best Prime Minister this country has had since WWII, was just plain idiotic, and I think the general public are slowly beginning to realise that, as the mess Brown made is being made worse by the current administration!
So, for Cameron to take us to war in Libya when Blair was so recently hounded out of office for taking us to war in Iraq should in fact be political suicide. If it turns out not to be then there is something very very wrong with this country!
3) I'm pretty sure we can't actually afford a war right now.
Every time a fighter aircraft takes off it cost the country several hundred thousand pounds. If it fires a weapon, that weapon has to be replaced at a cost of several thousand pounds. If the 'plane is shot down it has to be replaced at the cost of several million. And of course the pilot is irreplaceable.
Given that the government has just announced massive cuts to all branches of the military, I'm pretty sure the RAF will be stating quite categorically that they do not have the necessary equipment to enforce a no-fly zone. The Royal Navy has just had it's one "through-deck cruiser" - what has passed for an aircraft carrier since the 1970s - scrapped, and is now incapable of projecting air power anywhere (other than helicopters from destroyers) until the new carriers are commissioned in ten years time!
And cuts mean that morale is low. So, getting involved in a war now would be madness from the military's point of view!
That's it. Take it or leave it.
I don't claim to be right, but I do claim to have a valid opinion!