spider66 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 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 am sure I remember Margret Thatcher saying we were at war with Argentina ! And I wonder why the UN didnt go the war to help the genocide in Rawanda in fact I saw a documentry which showed the french troops pulling out ( under UN orders) as a massacre started!! Its all about controling the oil ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Strange how we are willing to go to war ( Pedants excepted) on behalf of one set of rebels yet are reticent to intervene in other countries. Can you explain why you think it's strange please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spider66 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 No the West it a war with the Arabs. Arabs own a lot of the oil, we need the oil. When the oil is gone the arabs will have nowt and they will have no reason to tolerate us in the west. They have been a blight on this world for 1000's of years and time is running out for this moraly corrupt group. Look at how they treat thier fellow Muslims when the say they are all Muslin brothers of the Muslin nation. Ironicaly Its what the national socialist of 1930s Germany thought too about a diffrent group of people though .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Why is there no liberty in Libya, can't they spell?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afilsdesigne Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 No the West it a war with the Arabs. Arabs own a lot of the oil, we need the oil. When the oil is gone the arabs will have nowt and they will have no reason to tolerate us in the west. Riche is quite right. Without oil, the Middle East is reduced to nothing more than a baking hot pile of sand. Who would want any of that? Oil is power and influence at present. A fact that Gaddafi knows very well. He sells his oil mainly to the Italians and Chinese. After this is finished, oil prices to Europe will be high and to the Chinese, lower. Indeed the Chinese will do very well out of this conflict, cheaper oil, new arms deals and more interest payments from increased debt mountains of the US and UK. Wars cost money that we don't have and just borrow. Oh boy, who voted for this?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 We have a lot of weapons which cost a lot of money and are approaching there "use by" date so we must use them or sell them to Libya, this way, there is no delivery charge, frree at source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 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. Afganistan was nothing at all to do with Bin Laden!The last time i heard the figures,97% of the worlds supply of heroin and poppy derived drugs now comes from afghanistan,it couldnt possibly be that were there for could it? If its not then the sheep hearders must be running round on some pretty fancy gold plated mules! Iraq-oil afghan -poppy fields Libya-oil Mugabee no money in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Afganistan was nothing at all to do with Bin Laden!The last time i heard the figures,97% of the worlds supply of heroin and poppy derived drugs now comes from afghanistan,it couldnt possibly be that were there for could it? If its not then the sheep hearders must be running round on some pretty fancy gold plated mules! Iraq-oil afghan -poppy fields Libya-oil Mugabee no money in it Zimabwe has many significant natual resources so I don't buy that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Zimabwe has many significant natual resources so I don't buy that argument. Thanks for letting us know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I can understand why there is now a no fly zone in force so that planes cannot be used to bomb their own people but why are the fighters patrolling the area attacking targets on the ground and what has the use of missiles to hit military bases got to do with a no fly zone. It sounds to me like they could be softening them up for a ground invasion which the yanks and the UK said is not going to happen. Can somebody please explain this to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.