Libya?

But surely that it is why it was done? The concept of mutually assured destruction was meant to be the great deterrent. An all out nuclear war would see everyone lose, thereby deterring everyone from using the nuclear option other than as a means of last ditch defence.

Regards,

kev35

trouble is there have been a few instances where it very nearly was reality and thank god it has never been put to the test but what if come the day one genuinely thinks there will be an advantage to launching first

the biggest laugh was the talks to destroy nukes

we all know the technology and materials will always be known and available

something that now its been here it will always be here !

But in that case was it intent to kill civilians or an unfortunate accident? If your enemy choose not to wear uniform then civilian casualties become increasingly likely. PII was talking about intent.

Regards,

kev35

How about Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia?

How about them?? I know of no instance in which Coalition (namely NATO) forces were ordered to engage civilians. Do you? If so the please cite an example and your source…

I’ve personally never been taught that it was EVER okay to target civilians intentionally, and I know of no one else who currently serves in the U.S. military who has….

Years ago, it was certainly more common, but recently? I know you like to play devil’s advocate, but I highly doubt British troops have been ordered to engage civilians in recent years either. (The same applies to all other NATO countries who’ve taken part in the campaigns against Milosevic, Hussein, or the Taliban.)

you don’t hear everything !!! by the very nature of terrorism and the type of fighting how can you tell terrorists from civillians ???

news has recently come out that an apache mowed down a group of civillians

But surely that it is why it was done? The concept of mutually assured destruction was meant to be the great deterrent. An all out nuclear war would see everyone lose, thereby deterring everyone from using the nuclear option other than as a means of last ditch defence.

Regards,

kev35

Sky High simply said NEVER the intention. He didn’t specify locations or timescales.

You state I’ve personally never been taught that it was EVER okay to target civilians intentionally, and I know of no one else who currently serves in the U.S. military who has…. Can I then ask who it is that follows the President around with a suitcase quaintly called the ‘football’? Or are you trying to tell me that American nuclear weapons would only ever kill military personnel? The intention then is to kill EVERYONE, is it not?

Regards,

kev35

quite correct in the event of nuclear the civillian body count would hugely exceed millitary targets

irony is that once the effects were seen we carried on building and escalating nuclear arms even though it is known the biggest death toll would be innocent civillians

Sky High simply said NEVER the intention. He didn’t specify locations or timescales.

You state I’ve personally never been taught that it was EVER okay to target civilians intentionally, and I know of no one else who currently serves in the U.S. military who has…. Can I then ask who it is that follows the President around with a suitcase quaintly called the ‘football’? Or are you trying to tell me that American nuclear weapons would only ever kill military personnel? The intention then is to kill EVERYONE, is it not?

Regards,

kev35

How about Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia?

How about them?? I know of no instance in which Coalition (namely NATO) forces were ordered to engage civilians. Do you? If so the please cite an example and your source…

I’ve personally never been taught that it was EVER okay to target civilians intentionally, and I know of no one else who currently serves in the U.S. military who has….

Years ago, it was certainly more common, but recently? I know you like to play devil’s advocate, but I highly doubt British troops have been ordered to engage civilians in recent years either. (The same applies to all other NATO countries who’ve taken part in the campaigns against Milosevic, Hussein, or the Taliban.)

…..I would say that the evidence is strong that it is NEVER the intention to kill innocent people and great steps are taken to avoid it and modern weaponry makes it far more possible than it was a decade or more ago.

NEVER the intention?

How about in Russia, Germany and God knows how many Countries during World War Two? How about My Lai in Vietnam? Depending on your outlook, how about ‘Bloody Sunday’? How about Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia? In war, the killing of civilians is not always an unhappy side effect or collateral damage, history records that on many occasions it is the precise intent.

Regards,

kev35

we should never forget the words of johnnie johnson ” dam buster ” he was on the dam that failed to be blown

he said ” with hindsight thank god it failed ” refering to the loss of civillian lives .

the bombing of dams is now banned under the geneva convention because of the loss of innocent civillians

that’s before you start on dresden

war is dirty !!

and don’t delude yourselves for 1 second that if there was civil unrest here that our own government wouldn’t kill to stop it and stay in power !!

the big difference between this and Iraq and Afghanistan is that there are no troops on the ground and that option has been explicitly ruled out

Good point although, one of the main arguments people used against both Iraq and Afghanistan was that civilians are also being killed (never intentionally from the coalition side although it’s war so innocents will be killed…doesn’t make it right, but it is true).

In the case of Libya that has certainly happened, so my question is the following: Are British people (and those in mainland Europe) not opposed to something that creates a situation where innocents might be killed? That certainly seemed to be a big part of the outcry in the other situations.

I cannot not speak for the “British people” but no one can ever be relaxed about innocent people being killed. However it happens in war – it is simply unavoidable. I would say that the evidence is strong that it is NEVER the intention to kill innocent people and great steps are taken to avoid it and modern weaponry makes it far more possible than it was a decade or more ago.

actualy i’m far from xenephobic or racist

but it is a fair and valid point

why should it always fall to america and the uk to sort out everyone elses problems and to put up with those that flee here and to the U.S.

It doesn’t. As simple as that. It’s a vested interest to keep for both US and Britain, to maintain the edge of their financial, political and military might. If this was not the case, or if the West (so to speak) was not highly uncomfortable and insecure with the gradual loss of ‘power’ in world geopolitics, Libya would have not happened.

Libya is an agenda, not a humanitarian shield as it is perceived to be. Which may be fine for all parties involved in the operation. But if you enter a mess, you clean it up, and you don’t whine later on the consequences.

the big difference between this and Iraq and Afghanistan is that there are no troops on the ground and that option has been explicitly ruled out

Good point although, one of the main arguments people used against both Iraq and Afghanistan was that civilians are also being killed (never intentionally from the coalition side although it’s war so innocents will be killed…doesn’t make it right, but it is true).

In the case of Libya that has certainly happened, so my question is the following: Are British people (and those in mainland Europe) not opposed to something that creates a situation where innocents might be killed? That certainly seemed to be a big part of the outcry in the other situations.

One day when we look for ‘xenophobia’ in the dictionary, we might just see your screen name under the definition. 😀

actualy i’m far from xenephobic or racist

but it is a fair and valid point

why should it always fall to america and the uk to sort out everyone elses problems and to put up with those that flee here and to the U.S.

the big problem is we are now at a point were it is past being a sustainable way of behaving for the uk in either lives or monnetary

if looking after those that are uk citizens ( irrespective of race creed or gender or sexuality is xionist then yes i’m a xionist and a racist )

Tornado – the inevitable consequence of your first paragraph is C.!!!

and C because we end up with all the ones that want our values living in our country because they legged it from thiers !!

One day when we look for ‘xenophobia’ in the dictionary, we might just see your screen name under the definition. 😀

In answer to the main thrust of your questions I think the low key response is partly because the big difference between this and Iraq and Afghanistan is that there are no troops on the ground and that option has been explicitly ruled out. So the likelihood of the now ritual ceremony of the bodies of British servicemen being returned to the UK, is remote.

We can all see Gadaffi’s resources slowly but surely being diminished and that sooner or later he will either be killed, intentionally or unintentionally, or he will flee to Zimbabwe, which is probably the only refuge he has.

to be brutaly honnest !! it is now wearing too thin , i don’t give a rats **** what happens in other countries or what happens to thier people

because A we don’t have the resources to do it anymore

B because scant few appreciate what has been done and once we leave it will revert back ( how can you give a nation democracy when the opposite is the prefered norm !! )

and C because we end up with all the ones that want our values living in our country because they legged it from thiers !!

Wow…I really guessed wrong on this one. I figured there would be a lot of responses at this point.

I read the older thread Grey posted, so that gives me some idea although to be honest I was hoping for some updated thoughts now that the military action there has been ongoing for a few months.

Perhaps nobody wants to provide their opinion?….interesting. Just when you think you have things figured out…lol.

The U.S. House of Representatives votes on Libya:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/house-votes-on-libya-indicate-little-support-for-intervention.html

Forum Members,

Given that the thread about Libyan air operations is for discussing air ops only, I figured this would be the safe place to put this question as I’m sure things will get political…..

because Libya is alot closer to “home”. Sarkozy is a cowboy, or le vache garcon, as he refers himself as. If Sarkozy had his way, he’d ban all new North African migrants, force assimilation policies to existing French N.Africans, and send France to more interventions in the Med. And while the French public don’t support his domestic policies.. they really support his foreign policies.. even more than Bush at his peak of popularity. it tells you something!

now the Germans.. they don’t want to make war. can you believe that?
The French want to make war, the German’s dont want to make war, America’s best rapper is white, the NBA’s tallest basketball player is Chinese, and the best golfer in the world is black. Interesting times my friend.