Are we sticking our nose in where it is not wanted AGAIN ?
Are we being puppets of the USA AGAIN ?
I am speaking of course about the situation in the Crimea.
Russia has taken control of the Crimea, the Crimean Parliament has said it will hold a referendum for the people to see if they wanted to remain part of the Ukraine or join Russia, the Parliament itself is said it would like to join Russia.
In the situation were the Ukraine Government has basically been deposed and a new Government put in place (a Coup de tat) should we not allow the people to make their own minds up ?
Is this situation any different to the one we have here in the United Kingdom where we are about to respect the wishes of the Scottish voters should they decide to leave the Union and become an independent Nation ? The Crimea has it's own Russian and Ukraine approved parliament and operates as an independent state of the Ukraine.
Russia has been the dominant power in Crimea for most of the past 200 years, since it annexed the region in 1783. But it was transferred by Moscow to Ukraine - then part of the Soviet Union - in 1954. Some ethnic Russians see that as a historical wrong.
However, another significant minority, the Muslim Crimean Tatars, point out that they were once the majority in Crimea, and were deported in large numbers by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1944 for alleged collaboration with Nazi invaders in World War Two.
Ethnic Ukrainians made up 24% of the population in Crimea according to the 2001 census, compared with 58% Russians and 12% Tatars.
Is Russia so wrong to be saying "hey we gave you the Crimea when you were part of the USSR, now you are talking with the EU and want nothing to do with Russia we do not think your entitled to it any more and the majority of the inhabitants want to stay as part of Russia while you in the Ukraine move on.
The UK has ruled out any form of Military action against Russia but does accept that events there could affect our gas supplies and could affect gas prices so we could be in store for price increases.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Sticking our noses in again
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Is this situation any different to the one we have here in the United Kingdom where we are about to respect the wishes of the Scottish voters should they decide to leave the Union and become an independent Nation ? The Crimea has it's own Russian and Ukraine approved parliament and operates as an independent state of the Ukraine.
Scotland has it's own government. Scotland doesn't want to join another nation. Neither Scotland, England or any other country has deployed armed troops on the streets to force the issue. So it is similar, but not the same.
The Crimea has it's own Government, approved by both the Ukraine and Russia.
Scottish troops have not been needed on the streets of Scotland because the United Kingdom has accepted Scotlands right to rule itself and break from the Union if that is what the majority vote for. British troops have not been needed on the streets of Scotland for the same reason.
Scottish troops remain loyal to the United Kingdom and put their lives on the line daily and will continue to do so until the results of the referendum is known, should Scotland decide to remain part of the UK they will continue to defend it, should Scotland decide to break from the UK they will be released from the British Army immediately on request and no doubt return to Scotland to join the Scottish National Army or work in the new Independent Scotland.
Scotland may not want to join another Nation but some do want independence, there are probably many in the Crimea who would welcome independence from both Russia and Ukraine and have their appointed Government rule them but many there are Russian and some are Ukrainian just as most in Scotland consider themselves Scottish, some consider themselves British, some consider themselves European and some are English and Irish (and probably quite few Polish)
Scottish troops have not been needed on the streets of Scotland because the United Kingdom has accepted Scotlands right to rule itself and break from the Union if that is what the majority vote for. British troops have not been needed on the streets of Scotland for the same reason.
Scottish troops remain loyal to the United Kingdom and put their lives on the line daily and will continue to do so until the results of the referendum is known, should Scotland decide to remain part of the UK they will continue to defend it, should Scotland decide to break from the UK they will be released from the British Army immediately on request and no doubt return to Scotland to join the Scottish National Army or work in the new Independent Scotland.
Scotland may not want to join another Nation but some do want independence, there are probably many in the Crimea who would welcome independence from both Russia and Ukraine and have their appointed Government rule them but many there are Russian and some are Ukrainian just as most in Scotland consider themselves Scottish, some consider themselves British, some consider themselves European and some are English and Irish (and probably quite few Polish)
Sex God
There is no such entity as Scottish troops. They are Scottish by birth and serve in the British armed forces swearing allegiance to the Monarch and the Union as a whole, not a constituent country. I also doubt that any of them would be released from the forces 'immediately' in the case of a yes vote for independence. But that's a tangent.
The fact that the UK Government and Scottish parliament are working together and that, aside from campaigning, it is business as usual goes to show how different that situation is from the one in Ukraine. It is a peaceful democratic vote not an armed invasion by third country nationals.
The fact that the UK Government and Scottish parliament are working together and that, aside from campaigning, it is business as usual goes to show how different that situation is from the one in Ukraine. It is a peaceful democratic vote not an armed invasion by third country nationals.
To be eligible for Service in the British Army you must be .......
Citizen of a Commonwealth country or holding British Overseas Territories Citizenship
You must have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK or have resided in the UK for five years before you start an application to join the Army. You must not have been out of the UK for a continuous period of more than 180 days (six months) during this five year period.
You will need to prove that you either have British citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain (Settlement) in the UK.
There are few exceptions to these rules, Citizens of the Irish Republic may join the British Army but not if they are still live in the Irish Republic, Nepalese Citizens may join a Ghurka Regiment but not a regular British Army Unit.
As Scottish people would reside outside the United Kingdom and would not be members of the British Commonwealth the rules are very clear, the British Army would have no right to hold them to their original allegiance having accepted that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom in the same way that soldiers from Rhodesia were released from the British Army when they became an independent Nation.
Working together, well perhaps on the surface, but warning shots have already been fired between the opposing Governments with Scottish Nationals claiming that funds will be required from the UK because they would be owed them having paid them in taxes to the UK and the English Parliament saying that if they go they go without further British funding or funds.
But I do not want to dwell on Scotland, time will tell on what happens should the referendum go the way of departure and I think both Parliaments will avoid discussing some aspects of that departure for fear of losing votes for and against respectively
Citizen of a Commonwealth country or holding British Overseas Territories Citizenship
You must have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK or have resided in the UK for five years before you start an application to join the Army. You must not have been out of the UK for a continuous period of more than 180 days (six months) during this five year period.
You will need to prove that you either have British citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain (Settlement) in the UK.
There are few exceptions to these rules, Citizens of the Irish Republic may join the British Army but not if they are still live in the Irish Republic, Nepalese Citizens may join a Ghurka Regiment but not a regular British Army Unit.
As Scottish people would reside outside the United Kingdom and would not be members of the British Commonwealth the rules are very clear, the British Army would have no right to hold them to their original allegiance having accepted that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom in the same way that soldiers from Rhodesia were released from the British Army when they became an independent Nation.
Working together, well perhaps on the surface, but warning shots have already been fired between the opposing Governments with Scottish Nationals claiming that funds will be required from the UK because they would be owed them having paid them in taxes to the UK and the English Parliament saying that if they go they go without further British funding or funds.
But I do not want to dwell on Scotland, time will tell on what happens should the referendum go the way of departure and I think both Parliaments will avoid discussing some aspects of that departure for fear of losing votes for and against respectively
Sex God
Mostly agreeing with Mids, the EU seems to want to try and have just about EVERY Country on the Continent to be influenced by or part of the EU. Obviously Russia has a large interest in Ukraine and is especially sensitive about Crimea, as it is home to the Black Sea Fleet.
I think Putin has got his way now and Crimea will go back to being part of Russia, but Putin perhaps should have invited independent observers in to oversee the referendum. He should also have distanced himself from the deposed Ukraine President and promised to work with outside Nations to recover for Ukraine any money stolen by the ex-pres.
Putin is no fool and he can out-smart very many Western Politicians.
John
I think Putin has got his way now and Crimea will go back to being part of Russia, but Putin perhaps should have invited independent observers in to oversee the referendum. He should also have distanced himself from the deposed Ukraine President and promised to work with outside Nations to recover for Ukraine any money stolen by the ex-pres.
Putin is no fool and he can out-smart very many Western Politicians.
John
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
As Scottish people would reside outside the United Kingdom and would not be members of the British Commonwealth the rules are very clear, the British Army would have no right to hold them to their original allegiance having accepted that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom in the same way that soldiers from Rhodesia were released from the British Army when they became an independent Nation.
Individual members of the UK Armed Forces, in whatever units they serve, could not simply be moved into the forces of a separate Scottish state. Existing members of the UK Armed Forces would still be part of the UK Armed Forces and, as far as the UK Government is concerned, would be able to continue to serve in them.
Sex God
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Mostly agreeing with Mids, the EU seems to want to try and have just about EVERY Country on the Continent to be influenced by or part of the EU. Obviously Russia has a large interest in Ukraine and is especially sensitive about Crimea, as it is home to the Black Sea Fleet.
I think Putin has got his way now and Crimea will go back to being part of Russia, but Putin perhaps should have invited independent observers in to oversee the referendum. He should also have distanced himself from the deposed Ukraine President and promised to work with outside Nations to recover for Ukraine any money stolen by the ex-pres.
Putin is no fool and he can out-smart very many Western Politicians.
I think your right, Putin has got his way and knew he would all along. He deployed his troops in full view of the world into an independent country and bullied his way to what he wanted knowing full well that no military force would be sent against him and that economic force is largely balanced in his favour, at least it is in the short term.
Makes you wonder where they're gonna try to claw back next?
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Mostly agreeing with Mids, the EU seems to want to try and have just about EVERY Country on the Continent to be influenced by or part of the EU. Obviously Russia has a large interest in Ukraine and is especially sensitive about Crimea, as it is home to the Black Sea Fleet.
I think Putin has got his way now and Crimea will go back to being part of Russia, but Putin perhaps should have invited independent observers in to oversee the referendum. He should also have distanced himself from the deposed Ukraine President and promised to work with outside Nations to recover for Ukraine any money stolen by the ex-pres.
Putin is no fool and he can out-smart very many Western Politicians.
John
Of course I agree with what your saying and Putin is no fool but he does have an advantage over many Western Politicians and that is his power base, whilst nowhere near what it used to be under Stalin and other Russian leaders he can still do more than Western Politicians without the massive opposition that Western Politicians face, especially when he is (to the average Russian) merely protecting Russian citizens who are residing in an area that was once part of the USSR and who want to be ruled by Russia in an area where they are the majority inhabitants and where they have important bases and assets.
Quote by Trevaunance
As Scottish people would reside outside the United Kingdom and would not be members of the British Commonwealth the rules are very clear, the British Army would have no right to hold them to their original allegiance having accepted that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom in the same way that soldiers from Rhodesia were released from the British Army when they became an independent Nation.
Individual members of the UK Armed Forces, in whatever units they serve, could not simply be moved into the forces of a separate Scottish state. Existing members of the UK Armed Forces would still be part of the UK Armed Forces and, as far as the UK Government is concerned, would be able to continue to serve in them.
As I said, this one is a debate for the future because none of us know exactly what the Government will decide should the referendum go in the path of independence and some details will be kept quiet until and if that situation arises. But it will be a big debate and decision because if it happens those forces personnel, many of whom are quite rightly very proud of their Scottish Nationality and heritage may have thoughts of their own and not just the question of if our Government wants members of our armed forces who are from a Nation that will be of similar status to Ireland, history has proved that we can accept them under certain conditions and it may well be that we will accept Scottish soldiers in the same way, but would we have the right to hold them to their allegiance if that allegiance changes ?
I will happily discuss this question with you if and when the time comes after the referendum.
Sex God
The government has already decided. You know me, I like my facts ;)
Will the Government of Scotland have any say in which armed forces their subjects serve ?
They have already said that they will form their own defence force in addition to closing some British Bases in Scotland such as the Faslane Nuclear Submarine base.
That will piss off the USA who use Faslane an awfie lot
The United Kingdom will probably move the base to Barrow in Furness where most of our Nuclear Submarines are actually built.
The new Scottish Government in waiting has said it will have NO nuclear capabilities in Scotland, none of their own and no other nations.
QUOTE:
Independence means that democratically elected Scottish governments would make decisions in the best interests of Scotland’s defence and her armed forces – including decisions on whether or not Scotland should go to war.
Scotland would have its own defence forces, designed to ensure that Scotland is able to secure its borders, land, air space and sea, deter attacks and protect its citizens and assets, and make a contribution to peace keeping under the auspices of the United Nations. All countries depend on cooperation with neighbours and allies and Scotland would be no different, pursuing bilateral and multilateral agreements and joining military alliances in the best interests of the defence of the country.
The precise make-up of the forces would be a matter for whichever party was elected to form a Scottish government to decide.
The current government has published detailed plans as part of its independence white paper "Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland". These plans include a phased build up of personnel to some 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel across land, air and maritime forces over ten years.
Over the first term of a Scottish Parliament, the current governments proposes that naval forces would be built up to two squadrons with around 2,400 regular and at least 270 reserve personnel. The army would incorporate an HQ function and an All-Arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units and supported by a number of specialist units and special forces. This would entail around 4,700 regular and at least 1,110 reserve personnel. The Scottish Government envisages air forces will include an Air Force HQ function, establishment of Air Command and Control systems, a Quick Reaction Alert squadron, a tactical air transport squadron, flight training and establishment of airborne maritime patrol capability. This would require 3,250 regular personnel and around 300 reserve personnel.
The Scottish Government has also committed to a policy of no compulsory redundancies for service personnel during their service contract.
The plans also include removal of Trident nuclear submarines and would also see Faslane become the joint headquarters for our conventional armed forces as well as the main naval base. Other existing and planned major army facilities will be retained. Air operations would be restored to Leuchars (alongside an army presence) and Lossiemouth would continue as the main operating base for fast jet aircraft and air policing. Options would be considered for re-instating Rosyth as a supporting naval base.
The white paper also sets out detailed proposals for defence assets, equipment and procurement.
Then there is this from
UK armed forces personnel
126. As well as Scottish regiments in the British Army, there are Scottish personnel in other Army units and in the Royal Navy and RAF. Independence for Scotland would raise questions over how many would remain in the armed forces of the rest of the UK and how the rest of the UK's forces would make up the shortfall. Would there be an impact on the UK's commitments to NATO?
143. Job losses in Scotland might be offset to some extent by employment in an independent Scotland's armed forces and defence installations. We have not seen much evidence about an independent Scotland's defence budget or the scale and capabilities of its armed forces. But Lord West gave us an estimate of the defence equipment newly-independent Scotland might acquire, and "probably end up with about 10,000 regular service troops".
They have already said that they will form their own defence force in addition to closing some British Bases in Scotland such as the Faslane Nuclear Submarine base.
That will piss off the USA who use Faslane an awfie lot
The United Kingdom will probably move the base to Barrow in Furness where most of our Nuclear Submarines are actually built.The new Scottish Government in waiting has said it will have NO nuclear capabilities in Scotland, none of their own and no other nations.
QUOTE:
Independence means that democratically elected Scottish governments would make decisions in the best interests of Scotland’s defence and her armed forces – including decisions on whether or not Scotland should go to war.
Scotland would have its own defence forces, designed to ensure that Scotland is able to secure its borders, land, air space and sea, deter attacks and protect its citizens and assets, and make a contribution to peace keeping under the auspices of the United Nations. All countries depend on cooperation with neighbours and allies and Scotland would be no different, pursuing bilateral and multilateral agreements and joining military alliances in the best interests of the defence of the country.
The precise make-up of the forces would be a matter for whichever party was elected to form a Scottish government to decide.
The current government has published detailed plans as part of its independence white paper "Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland". These plans include a phased build up of personnel to some 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel across land, air and maritime forces over ten years.
Over the first term of a Scottish Parliament, the current governments proposes that naval forces would be built up to two squadrons with around 2,400 regular and at least 270 reserve personnel. The army would incorporate an HQ function and an All-Arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units and supported by a number of specialist units and special forces. This would entail around 4,700 regular and at least 1,110 reserve personnel. The Scottish Government envisages air forces will include an Air Force HQ function, establishment of Air Command and Control systems, a Quick Reaction Alert squadron, a tactical air transport squadron, flight training and establishment of airborne maritime patrol capability. This would require 3,250 regular personnel and around 300 reserve personnel.
The Scottish Government has also committed to a policy of no compulsory redundancies for service personnel during their service contract.
The plans also include removal of Trident nuclear submarines and would also see Faslane become the joint headquarters for our conventional armed forces as well as the main naval base. Other existing and planned major army facilities will be retained. Air operations would be restored to Leuchars (alongside an army presence) and Lossiemouth would continue as the main operating base for fast jet aircraft and air policing. Options would be considered for re-instating Rosyth as a supporting naval base.
The white paper also sets out detailed proposals for defence assets, equipment and procurement.
Then there is this from
UK armed forces personnel
126. As well as Scottish regiments in the British Army, there are Scottish personnel in other Army units and in the Royal Navy and RAF. Independence for Scotland would raise questions over how many would remain in the armed forces of the rest of the UK and how the rest of the UK's forces would make up the shortfall. Would there be an impact on the UK's commitments to NATO?
143. Job losses in Scotland might be offset to some extent by employment in an independent Scotland's armed forces and defence installations. We have not seen much evidence about an independent Scotland's defence budget or the scale and capabilities of its armed forces. But Lord West gave us an estimate of the defence equipment newly-independent Scotland might acquire, and "probably end up with about 10,000 regular service troops".
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
And you know that the soldiers have decided ? I am sure they will have something to say about serving an what they will see as an English army who might however slight the chance, be called upon to fight against Scotland.
Of course I don't know for sure. But nobody does. Many of the guys that may one day have to make that decision are still in schools and colleges as we speak. Here's some .
As an ex soldier I can easily believe that your average soldier would find life in a defence army boring, it seems to work ok in some Countries, Switzerland being a prime example since they have not been in conflict since the French Revolution and know that their Nation has vowed only to defend their Country and never attack another, but Scottish soldiers would and do crave action, I still think they could meet expected targets for their defence force but I also think many would prefer to join or stay in the British Army (if permitted to)
But your comment "nobody does" is exactly what I said, much of what independence would mean will be kept under wraps until the time comes if it does to make decisions which is why I said to you that this would make an interesting discussion in the future.
But your comment "nobody does" is exactly what I said, much of what independence would mean will be kept under wraps until the time comes if it does to make decisions which is why I said to you that this would make an interesting discussion in the future.
Meanwhile ...... is this sticking our noses in ? a new Afghanistan ? an unwanted invasion ? a good move to fight terrorism ?
Hundreds of British soldiers to deploy to Libya 'within months' to train army in their battle with Al Qaeda extremists
UK soldiers would be sent ‘within months’ to help train the Libyan army
There are fears that Libya is becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics
Critics have raised concerns that Britain could suffer ‘mission creep’ and be sucked into another bloody war
Hundreds of British troops are being prepared to deploy to North Africa to tackle al Qaeda-inspired extremists.
Under secret plans being drawn up urgently by top brass, UK soldiers would be sent ‘within months’ to the region to help train the Libyan army.
Political and military chiefs have acted amid mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Coloner Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011.
But critics have raised concerns that Britain could suffer ‘mission creep’ and be sucked into another bloody war just as fighting in Afghanistan - which has cost 444 UK lives - is drawing to a close.
Military officers warned the proposed deployment would risk ‘overstretch’ as it takes place when the MoD is axing nearly 5,000 soldiers this year, controversially reducing the size of the Army from 102,000 to 82,000.
More...
Anarchy in Egypt: Dutch reporter is ' in Tahrir Square' as Egypt's army issues 48 hour deadline for clashes to be resolved
'Every dollar counts': Saudi royal with £12bn fortune caught in legal battle over airliner sold to Gaddafi tells judge how he still knows value of money
One officer, who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘The war in Afghanistan has not yet ended and already the government has committed the Army to another foreign operation.
‘Libya is a highly unstable country which is awash with weapons and has been infiltrated by al-Qaeda.
‘Thousands of British soldiers have just been made redundant and morale is at an all time low and there is a real possibility of mission creep in Libya - the timing of this operation could not have been worse.’
There are mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Coloner Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011
+3
There are mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Coloner Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011
Britain has already sent some 50 troops to West Africa to train the Malian Army which is battling an Islamist insurgency.
Defence chiefs have ordered 4 Infantry Brigade, based in Catterick, North Yorkshire, to begin preparing for the Libyan mission.
Prime Minister David Cameron is deeply concerned that Libyan could quickly become a failed state and a haven for al-Qaeda sympathisers.
More than 2,000 Libyan infantrymen would be given lessons in basic soldiering skills to prevent militants securing a foothold in the war-ravaged country.
A senior defence source said: ‘It is yet to be confirmed where the training will takes place.
‘It is a possibility that this could happen in Libya although the security situation could prevent this.
‘The training could take place in a third country or it could take place in the Uk but that would create significant problems.’
Britain will form part of an international task force whose aim will be to help bring stability to the country.
UK troops will help train the Army on how to secure its huge borders and prevent the flow of illegal arms shipments to terrorist groups around the world.
Up to 3,000 surface-to-air missiles have gone missing in Libya since the conflict - and spy chiefs say the state has become the ‘Tesco’ of the world’s illegal arms trade.
More than one million tonnes of weapons belonging to Colonel Gaddafi were looted from arms dumps after the dictator was toppled in October 2011.
MI6 agents fear large numbers of weapons have been smuggled out of Libya to groups linked to Al Qaeda.
Hundreds of British soldiers to deploy to Libya 'within months' to train army in their battle with Al Qaeda extremists
UK soldiers would be sent ‘within months’ to help train the Libyan army
There are fears that Libya is becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics
Critics have raised concerns that Britain could suffer ‘mission creep’ and be sucked into another bloody war
Hundreds of British troops are being prepared to deploy to North Africa to tackle al Qaeda-inspired extremists.
Under secret plans being drawn up urgently by top brass, UK soldiers would be sent ‘within months’ to the region to help train the Libyan army.
Political and military chiefs have acted amid mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Coloner Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011.
But critics have raised concerns that Britain could suffer ‘mission creep’ and be sucked into another bloody war just as fighting in Afghanistan - which has cost 444 UK lives - is drawing to a close.
Military officers warned the proposed deployment would risk ‘overstretch’ as it takes place when the MoD is axing nearly 5,000 soldiers this year, controversially reducing the size of the Army from 102,000 to 82,000.
More...
Anarchy in Egypt: Dutch reporter is ' in Tahrir Square' as Egypt's army issues 48 hour deadline for clashes to be resolved
'Every dollar counts': Saudi royal with £12bn fortune caught in legal battle over airliner sold to Gaddafi tells judge how he still knows value of money
One officer, who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘The war in Afghanistan has not yet ended and already the government has committed the Army to another foreign operation.
‘Libya is a highly unstable country which is awash with weapons and has been infiltrated by al-Qaeda.
‘Thousands of British soldiers have just been made redundant and morale is at an all time low and there is a real possibility of mission creep in Libya - the timing of this operation could not have been worse.’
There are mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Coloner Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011
+3
There are mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Coloner Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011
Britain has already sent some 50 troops to West Africa to train the Malian Army which is battling an Islamist insurgency.
Defence chiefs have ordered 4 Infantry Brigade, based in Catterick, North Yorkshire, to begin preparing for the Libyan mission.
Prime Minister David Cameron is deeply concerned that Libyan could quickly become a failed state and a haven for al-Qaeda sympathisers.
More than 2,000 Libyan infantrymen would be given lessons in basic soldiering skills to prevent militants securing a foothold in the war-ravaged country.
A senior defence source said: ‘It is yet to be confirmed where the training will takes place.
‘It is a possibility that this could happen in Libya although the security situation could prevent this.
‘The training could take place in a third country or it could take place in the Uk but that would create significant problems.’
Britain will form part of an international task force whose aim will be to help bring stability to the country.
UK troops will help train the Army on how to secure its huge borders and prevent the flow of illegal arms shipments to terrorist groups around the world.
Up to 3,000 surface-to-air missiles have gone missing in Libya since the conflict - and spy chiefs say the state has become the ‘Tesco’ of the world’s illegal arms trade.
More than one million tonnes of weapons belonging to Colonel Gaddafi were looted from arms dumps after the dictator was toppled in October 2011.
MI6 agents fear large numbers of weapons have been smuggled out of Libya to groups linked to Al Qaeda.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
But critics have raised concerns that Britain could suffer ‘mission creep’ and be sucked into another bloody war just as fighting in Afghanistan - which has cost 444 UK lives - is drawing to a close.
Really? Hmmm? Who'd have thought there was any risk of British troops fighting a war in Africa.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Political and military chiefs have acted amid mounting fears that Libya is rapidly becoming a safe haven for Islamist fanatics after Colonel Gadaffi was toppled in October 2011
Libya was no stranger to terrorism; but Gadaffi was considered as one of the best influences against AQ et al in Africa. He had a zero tolerance policy towards them, ironically some would say. Libya was actually carrying out counter-terrorist operations and repression for many years leading up to the revolt. This enhanced his value to the US and other western governments and reflects how in the years leading up to the revolt Libya was slowly improving relations with the West.
Ironically someone who was perhaps a good ally (symbolically at least) with us against AQ was bought down by AQ elements (amongst others) with our support. Creating a power vacuum in a state awash with factious in fighting and weapons by the lorry load. Arms dumps all over Libya are slowly being discovered and emptied, and who knows who is getting their hands on them.
The trouble is once you *start interfering it's difficult to stop.
*edited because I'm a biff :lol:
So I guess in summary it is a case of
Damned if we do, Damned if we don't scenario :sad:
Wouldn't it be cool if the Prime Minister actually said that to the Nation this time, stood up on TV and said "we don't want to send troops, there will be casualties, there will be sadness and tragedy, but if we don't send troops the casualties and tragedies could be far worse on our home soil and on our travelling subjects, you know just be honest with people for once and explain what we are doing and why we are doing it. Many will understand without the explanation but many will not.
I felt the same about the first Iraq war, it is well documented that Hussain wanted control of middle east oil, all of it, he went to war with Iran believing at the time he would have US support following the Iran hostage situation but that never happened and after 10 years of war he had to concede and make peace, he invaded Kuwait to control their oil but documents were found showing plans to invade other oil producing neighbours and to have other allied oil producing neighbours under his influence.
One Man/Nation controlling all or most of the middle east oil production would be a nightmare, prices could rocket or worse supplies withheld, it would be a totally unacceptable situation, you can't get to work without oil, you cannot run factories at work without oil, you cannot get goods to shops without oil, schools cannot function without oil, the list of consequences is endless.
So why didn't the Government tell the people the truth tell them that if he was allowed to continue with his plans the UK and many other parts of the world could be driven back into the dark ages, oh and we also think he supresses his people and has some weapons of mass destruction that we want to check for while we are there ? I think if this had been explained to everyone, those less enlightened especially there would have been more support for our actions there.
Damned if we do, Damned if we don't scenario :sad:
Wouldn't it be cool if the Prime Minister actually said that to the Nation this time, stood up on TV and said "we don't want to send troops, there will be casualties, there will be sadness and tragedy, but if we don't send troops the casualties and tragedies could be far worse on our home soil and on our travelling subjects, you know just be honest with people for once and explain what we are doing and why we are doing it. Many will understand without the explanation but many will not.
I felt the same about the first Iraq war, it is well documented that Hussain wanted control of middle east oil, all of it, he went to war with Iran believing at the time he would have US support following the Iran hostage situation but that never happened and after 10 years of war he had to concede and make peace, he invaded Kuwait to control their oil but documents were found showing plans to invade other oil producing neighbours and to have other allied oil producing neighbours under his influence.
One Man/Nation controlling all or most of the middle east oil production would be a nightmare, prices could rocket or worse supplies withheld, it would be a totally unacceptable situation, you can't get to work without oil, you cannot run factories at work without oil, you cannot get goods to shops without oil, schools cannot function without oil, the list of consequences is endless.
So why didn't the Government tell the people the truth tell them that if he was allowed to continue with his plans the UK and many other parts of the world could be driven back into the dark ages, oh and we also think he supresses his people and has some weapons of mass destruction that we want to check for while we are there ? I think if this had been explained to everyone, those less enlightened especially there would have been more support for our actions there.
