First topic message reminder :

This morning, we are effectively at war again. Military action will commence shortly. I believe that our leaders have taken leave of their senses. Wouldn't it be better to extricate our armed forces, affected like us all by 'the ConDem cuts,' from one serious conflict (Afghanistan) before embarking on yet another (Libya), at a time when an area of the world where the British have strong interests and residual moral responsibilities is crying out for attention? I refer, of course, to Zimbabwe (or as some of us still call that beloved but benighted country, Rhodesia).

Its been reported that approximately 60 tonnes of fuel was used by the Tornados that flew from Norfolk. How many tens / hundreds of thousands of pounds did that cost? How many millions are we paying in ordanance, logistics etc on these missions? Putting aside the rights and wrongs of taking part in this action against Libya I thought we were skint, infact, if we are to believe what we are told, we are worse than skint and yet Dave and George can suddenly find the money for this while we are enduring cuts and tax rises at home. I'm far from being a pacifist and support our armed forces 100%, but I say again we are broke so where is the money coming from? money that could be spent on the British people.

Novinite

The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called his international opponents "
fascists"
and pledged he will be "
victorious in the end"
.

In a brief speech at the Bab al-Aziziya compound, which was targeted by the Western coalition on Sunday, he said that all Islamic armies should join him in this "
historic battle against unjust aggression"
, the BBC reported on Wednesday.

"
Those that are against you are just a handful of crazed people, a handful of Fascists,"
Gaddafi said.

In his words, there was a new crusader battle launched by crusader countries on Islam.

"
Long live Islam everywhere. All Islamic armies must take part in the battle, all free people must take part in the battle. We will be victorious in the end,"
Gaddafi said.

The leader denounced the bombings by the Western coalition saying that "
in the long term, we will beat them"
.

"
We shall not surrender and we shall not fear passers by. We jeer at their missiles. These are passing missiles. The most powerful air defense is the people. Here are the people. Gaddafi is in the middle of the people. This is the air defense,"
he said.

In conclusion, he said he did not fear "
storms that sweep the horizon"
or "
planes that throw black destruction"
.

"
I am resistant, my house is here in my tent. I am the rightful owner, and the creator of tomorrow. I, I am here! I am here! I am here!,"
he said.

Meanwhile, the Western coalition is enforcing a UN Security Council resolution to protect civilians and set up a no-fly zone.

Even though Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over Libya and have fired more than 162 Tomahawk cruise missiles, pro-Gaddafi forces continue to be in fierce fighting with rebels.

==================================================================================================

Quote

In a brief speech at the Bab al-Aziziya compound, which was targeted by the Western coalition on Sunday, he said that all Islamic armies should join him in this "
historic battle against unjust aggression"
, the BBC reported on Wednesday.

Unquote

Justified or not, it IS "
aggression"
. This will not end until ground forces go in and maybe not even then. How many terrorist attacks will this incite in Europe and the US now? How many Billions are going to be wasted unnecessarily on this coalition action? How come Cameron can suddenly afford all this when Britain is on it's knees? The Arabs are still on the sidelines. Major mistake for the coalition to do this. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya should have been left well alone by the West. What they are doing is not going to lead to a solution, it is an aggravation of the situation.

stigofthedump wrote:

Its been reported that approximately 60 tonnes of fuel was used by the Tornados that flew from Norfolk. How many tens / hundreds of thousands of pounds did that cost? How many millions are we paying in ordanance, logistics etc on these missions? Putting aside the rights and wrongs of taking part in this action against Libya I thought we were skint, infact, if we are to believe what we are told, we are worse than skint and yet Dave and George can suddenly find the money for this while we are enduring cuts and tax rises at home. I'm far from being a pacifist and support our armed forces 100%, but I say again we are broke so where is the money coming from? money that could be spent on the British people.

[size=50:27daw79e]Daily Telegraph

The Arab countries aren't spending any money!!

[size=150:27daw79e]Libya: Arab failure to join attack raises doubts
Arab countries have been urged to take part in military strikes against Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya amid growing concerns about their commitment to the campaign.

Follow the latest developments through our Libya live coverage.
Yesterday the United Arab Emirates, one of only two Arab nations to have offered military assistance, said that its role would be "
confined to the delivery of humanitarian assistance"
.
Amr Mussa, the secretary–general of the Arab League, said at the weekend that he wanted "
protection of civilians in Libya, not bombing other civilians"
.
Yesterday, following the intervention of David Cameron and Ban Ki–Moon, the UN secretary–general, Mr Mussa insisted he had been misquoted and publicly backed the operation in Libya. However, Arab countries had yet to use their extensive military assets to help enforce the no–fly zone and many appeared more concerned with suppressing unrest in their own countries.
Col Tim Collins, who participated in the Army's early campaign in Iraq, said: "
Their support is crucial, otherwise it looks like yet another attack by the West on Arab nations. We should include Arab nations in the command and control of the operation, to ensure they are involved. They have the gear, there are missed opportunities here."


Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the Army, said: "
The continuing support of Arab nations is vital, the leaders of the coalition are going to have to work that Arab sensitivity really quite hard. They are reluctant to see non–Arab nations taking action within the territory of the Arab League."

Egypt, which has one of the most extensive military arsenals in the region, including 565 combat aircraft, elected not to participate in the operation in Libya, citing "
internal security"
concerns following its revolution.
Saudi Arabia, which has more than 300 fighter jets, was silent on its involvement in Libya. It faces growing unrest within its own borders following the arrest of 50 protesters outside the Interior Ministry in Riyadh on Sunday. It is also leading an Arab task force which is suppressing protests in Bahrain.
According to French defence officials, Qatar has pledged four fighter jets to support the allied effort, but the planes were yet to carry out a mission.
The UAE's withdrawal of military support was likely to be the most significant concern for Western forces as France had been convinced that the UAE would supply Mirage 2000 fighter jets. Instead, it limited its support to humanitarian aid.
Sir Mike added: "
The request by the Arab League for an air exclusion zone was very important. That sense of it not being purely a Western operation but one which includes the Arab League and its members is most important politically."

An Arab League official said that saving Libya from Col Gaddafi was an "
Arab and nationalist duty"
.
Nassif Hitti, head of the league's mission in Paris, said: "
The Libyan situation is very dangerous, there are fears over the future of Libya.
"
I think Libya is an Arab and nationalist duty, before it is an international duty, and as it is a humanitarian duty too. The aim is to save Libya, to preserve the unity of its heritage."

Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al–Attiyah, secretary–general of the six–nation Gulf Co–operation Council, said the aim of the Libyan operation was to protect citizens, and that it should not be perceived as an invasion of an Arab country.
"
What is happening now is not an intervention. It is about protecting the people from bloodshed,"
he said.

On the BBC news....citizens of Benghazi singing the praises of David Cameron for supporting the Armed Militia in their battle for regime change. Some one best get in there PDQ and tell them that the coalition can not support them in a regime change. Do they not understand that as soon as the armed milita starts shelling Tripoli and puts civilians under the threat of harm, then the coalition must turn their jets and bombs on them. ......Or is the coalition REALLY supporting an armed militia in a civil war for regime change.....I think its time Mr Cameron came clean on the intent here.

We went into Afghanistan looking for Osama bin laden, (remember him) we went into Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, (remember them) we went into Libya to impose a no fly zone, (remember that) the uk is having public sector cuts because the country has no money left but spending millions daily on a war the people don't want. Lies and liars! I don't trust a word our politicians say. Gaddafi is fighting a bunch of insurgents, its none of our business. This mess was started by the war-monger Sarkozy.

Cameron and the rest of the coalition leaders are now taking sides in a civil war and are openly backing the rebels even though they have not got the faintest idea who the rebels are or who is behind them.We are winning announced the m.o.d.well i would have been damn surprised if we was,not after all Gaddafi as no defense against the air attacks.This is was never about protecting civilians who,s deaths can,t be verified by Gaddafi or the rebels.This action go,s beyond enforcing a no fly zone and in attacking ground forces it makes it clear this is about regime change. Mr Cameron wants to take his blinkers off because just like the uprising in the Yemen. Libya's rebels are backed by Al-Qeada and the Islamic front but his focus is on solely getting rid of Gaddafi but who is going to replace him? Who,s next on the wests list of regime changes Syria seems a good bet if after all its about protecting civilians and not about oil.

davshaz wrote:

We went into Afghanistan looking for Osama bin laden, (remember him) we went into Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, (remember them) we went into Libya to impose a no fly zone, (remember that) the uk is having public sector cuts because the country has no money left but spending millions daily on a war the people don't want. Lies and liars! I don't trust a word our politicians say. Gaddafi is fighting a bunch of insurgents, its none of our business. This mess was started by the war-monger Sarkozy.

I think Cameron wasn't too far behind Sarkozy. Overall, I agree 100% with what you say. In fact, it could be me writing your post :))) The British politicians will now be too busy counting their bombs and watching the taxpayers money go down the drain to do much else. The cost will be increased terror attacks, mainly on British targets - they never were that keen on the rest of Europe. So, everyone now has that to look forward to as well.

Its time to bring the whole episode of Libya to a conclusion, and that conclusion can only be to take out Gadaffi, take him out of the equation. Do what the Israelis do, ask yourself do they give any attention to what the rest of the world thinks, they do it and thats why the Arabs leave them alone. The UK will let this drag on and on afraid of what the rest of the world might say. The longer it is allowed to continue the worse the situation will become for everyone. Take out the murderous Gadaffi A.S.A.P. and help the sunni muslims form a government in Libya, because if the shiitte muslims gain power there will be more trouble than now, and we will be giving Iran a present they can only dream about having, (control of the middle east)

scott wrote:

Do what the Israelis do, ask yourself do they give any attention to what the rest of the world thinks, they do it and thats why the Arabs leave them alone.

This is right Scott - Britain has always been weak in seeking the approval of everyone else for it's actions.

The Shiite moslems would indeed be a nightmare for the western world. And, it would indeed be a dream come true for Iran if they took power.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be that easy to kill Gaddafi, even with ground troops. Gaddafi is not one to hide in a hole like Saddam - he is going to be in everyones face until he has a few holes shot in his head. Meanwhile, Europe, especially the UK, can expect escalating terror attacks.

Novinite

After Ajdabiya, Brega Falls to Libyan Rebels

Rebels in Libya have captured the key city of Brega, an information confirmed by several sources including official Libyan ones.

Earlier Saturday it was announced that rebels took over the strategic city of Ajdabiya in the easter parts of the country.

Ajdabiya was taken by government forces last week.

In the same time, the Washington Post has reported that the international coalition is mulling ways to arm rebels in order to help their fight against the government of Muammar Gaddafi.

===================================================================================================

The rebels now seem to be in sight of doing it themselves and they should just be left to get on with it. Keep away nigger US president, Cameron, Sarkozy and the rest.

People losing their jobs, huge cut backs in England (so Scotland Wales and N Ireland don't have to cut etc) yet there is still money for a million pound a bomb in a far off land. Has there ever been a more idiotic country than England?

stigofthedump wrote:

People losing their jobs, huge cut backs in England (so Scotland Wales and N Ireland don't have to cut etc) yet there is still money for a million pound a bomb in a far off land. Has there ever been a more idiotic country than England?

I believe it's 500,000 to 800,000 depending on how it is launched. That, in the UK, is an average yearly salary for 25 - 40 people.

By the time you ad the cost of fuel and the cost of other overheads I think it will be very close to 1 million.

Carmen wrote:

other overheads

What overheads? Once it's launched, it's launched and there are no overheads.

coriolanus wrote:

Carmen wrote:

other overheads

What overheads? Once it's launched, it's launched and there are no overheads.

So your assuming that they were launched from England?