Titanic99 Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 As far as I'm aware we haven't stated we'll shoot all Libyan planes out of their own airspace either, so it is the same. I think you'll find that the general consesnus is that if a nation doesn't conform to a no-fly zone, that you can expect the planes to be shot out of the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 An official state of war is much more than just a military action. We haven't declared war on any nation since at least 1950 - and I'm not even sure we ever declared war on North Korea, so maybe it was 1939. You may recall the furore over whether the sinking of the General Belgrano was, or was not, justified. Without rehashing the argument, let me just point out that the only reason an argument existed is because we were not at war with Argentina. When you're at war with a nation, you sink any and all of their ships, anywhere at any time. When you're undertaking a specific military action, short of war, then you only do what's necessary for that particular action - you don't sink everything willy-nilly. I agree the first part, following that rationale though we were never at War with Iraq as technically it hadn't been declared. I'm struggling with the second paragraph though as I can't see the difference between targetting ships and targetting aircraft. Surely if we are prepared to shoot aircraft out of the sky, it is no different to shooting ships in the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 An official state of war is much more than just a military action. We haven't declared war on any nation since at least 1950 - and I'm not even sure we ever declared war on North Korea, so maybe it was 1939. You may recall the furore over whether the sinking of the General Belgrano was, or was not, justified. Without rehashing the argument, let me just point out that the only reason an argument existed is because we were not at war with Argentina. When you're at war with a nation, you sink any and all of their ships, anywhere at any time. When you're undertaking a specific military action, short of war, then you only do what's necessary for that particular action - you don't sink everything willy-nilly. Maybe someone should inform the other side then, perhaps they'll stop killing our troops who are not at war with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I think you'll find that the general consesnus is that if a nation doesn't conform to a no-fly zone, that you can expect the planes to be shot out of the sky. The problem with that is no one knows where the plane will finally crash,or how many innocent people will be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Sarkozy seems to making a lot of noise about this.Let's see him send French troops in first. Although I do think Cameron seems to be on some sort of ego trip. KEEP OUT OF IT !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunsel Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 As Anthony Eden famously stated during the Suez crisis in the 50ies, "We are not at war, we are in armed conflict". I think this concept applies today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Why are getting involved with the internal affairs of Libya? If it's all about protecting civilians from their governments murdering them, why aren't we also getting involved in Bahrain and Yemen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I have 3 questions. How many people have died at the hands of their leader? How many people will die in the coming months as a result of stopping the few above? How much money are we going to earn out of their oil? Ok four questions.how long will it be before we have to work on hearts and minds?? The UN dont give 2 hoops about their people if people were so much of a concern then we would have tackled Mugarbee,if anyone thinks its about anything else than oil then they really need a reality check! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Say the word - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunsel Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Xt500, agreed, Iraq was all about oil. Afganistan was about Bin Laden, with the Americans infuriated at the damage on their soil. I believe there is oil in Libya, but I may be wrong. What puzzles me is the deafening silence from Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.