I’ve never claimed I’ve been shot at on service, I was happily in a tent fiddling with radio’s, which was the job the Queen told me to do – regardless was P8’ed years ago, long before Blair appeared

I’ve got a hell of a lot of mates still in and out who have though TJ, and I can tell you that, to a man, they think that the biggest crime of TCB was failing to get UN approval – Something that we (and France, and the US, and everyone else involved) have got this time

Now, back to where we were – the Rome Statutes, come on, which ones have been broken?

stevie750 – Member
It was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the falklands

So if the British submarine had popped up to the surface, the captain of the Belgrano would have invited the submarine captain over for a cup of tea?

I am still serving, and have been shot at a bit, although admittedly only rockets and mortars as I’m a bit of a REMF. I don’t see what that’s got to do with the argument though, am I allowed an opinion on MPs, for example, as I’ve never been one?

We aren’t intervening in Syria because we can’t do it:

Legally – As Z11 says, there is no way a UNSCR would get through.

Politically – Syria is at the heart of the Arab world, physically and culturally, and has ties with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. It would set the middle east ablaze.

Militarily – Syria has a large and credible military. We haven’t got the numbers. Even the Americans would struggle, given their current commitments. Also, what seems to be happening in Syria is more urban, house-to-house, repression using hired thugs etc, much harder to interdict from the air than using heavy weapons in the open.

So overall, it’s realpolitik. All we can do is diplomacy, protest, sanction etc. Just because we can’t intervene everywhere, does that mean we shouldn’t intervene anywhere? Hypocrisy or doing what we can?

airtrqic – you illustrate my point perfectly – people with real service experience who have seen people die are not nearly so gung ho about sending young men off to die

Edit – nor do they tend to want to score political points off these deaths
double edit – meaning that is a considered non hysterical post from you

The Belgrano, for all the controversy, makes a great pub quiz question:

Q. Which US warship survived Pearl Harbour to be sunk by the British?

A. The USS Phoenix, sold to Argentina in the 50s and renamed the General Belgrano.

I believe we were outside the RoE on that one. I don’t know why she was torpedoed, although I’ve read lots of hypotheses. I suspect to destroy the Argies principal naval asset, degrade their military strength and impact on their morale, which was a battle winer later on. At the Government level, they started it by invading British territory, and got what they deserved. A real pisser for the 1000+ conscripts on board though.

Edit: And to get back to the original post, I agree with TJ and accept the “Garter Knights” explanation.

Big and daft – do you really believe that? You really are daft.

Internet debate at its finest.

I am still serving, and have been shot at a bit, although admittedly only rockets and mortars

My lad took a video of his mates under mortar and rocket attack. While watching it I don’t think the phrase “only rockets and mortars” ever came to mind. 😯

Warmonger – One who advocates or attempts to stir up war

TJ: You’ve implied that some of us are warmongers which is a very assuming, nasty and insulting remark. If you called me that to my face, I’d give you a piece of my mind. So show some balls and clarify which forum users you think are warmongers?

You’ve implied that some of us are warmongers which is a very assuming, nasty and insulting remark. If you called me that to my face, I’d give you a piece of my mind.

😆

Qualitage.

“Gung ho military types” was the phrase I used. IME people who actually understand what being in action is all about are not the ones who want to go to war on any pretext. People who have seen freinds killed and have been in a kill or be killed situation seem to be rather more circumspect that those that have never been in that situation.

See the debate befoer the Iraq invasion where the veterans in the commons were all against intervention only to be told they did not understand. Who was right?

There are people on this forum who show a desire to go to shooting war that I am confident they never would if they really understood what it means.

So Buzz- have you done real active service?

And if you want offensive you claimed I applauded the 9/11 bombers.

For TJ’s airbrushed memory:-

I do wonder how many of the warmongerers (sic) on here

Oh right – I did use that phrase. I did check back but missed it.. Same applies as my answer above.

On this thread I have been compared to William Joyce and told I applaud 9/11 bombers.

TandemJeremy – Member

So Buzz- have you done real active service?

Maybe he has maybe he hasn’t bu at least he’s brave enough to wear the uniform unlike yourself TJ..

And, before you ask, yes, yes I have seen active service.

On several trips.

Teetoosugars – I note you are not on this thread supporting this intervention? Perhpas I have a point?

I have nothing but admiration for people who have faced the threats of active service. I have been deeply affected by the traumas of the WW2 veterans I have cared for. I have paid my respects in Normandy, in Ypres and Auschwitz and in the bunkers in Slovenia

I have contempt for plastic soldiers and armchair warriors who would send our young men to die on flimsy pretexts to satisfy their egos and who argue for military intervention without understanding the trauma of it. Especially those who exaggerate their military credentials to do so. Walts I believe you call them

Well, I’ve reread the thread carefully TJ – and I cannot see anyone here except you has called for military intervention, all anyone has done so far is say that your claims that British Forces have acted illegally in Libya are bollocks!

In fact – the only person warmongering this thread is you, saying that we should be threatening to bomb the Libyan rebels, and questioning why we’re not intervening in Syria

Reread the posts, and show me one post that calls for military intervention, that was not posted by you!

I don’t want get involved with this nonsense, specially as big and daft and zulu are both here to guarantee that the thread will plod along at the level of playground taunting

all I asked for was the evidence for the assertions made. They seem to be sweeping and generalised, I asked for the analysis that would allow reasonable consideration

or do you stick to your “lies” position?

TJ
where’s the warmongering?

the problem with kinectic force is that it does not discriminate and no targetting system is perfect, the only way to stop UK munitions killing people in Libya is not to fire them. The problem with that is you have to accept the consequences of inaction.

I feel this sums up the quandary

For Junkyard
My view is that we shouldn’t have got directly involved, plenty of NATO partners closer/ Arab League/ African Union etc. The bind is that we are involved and the delay in taking action meant the “moment” for a quick resolution was lost so we have the worst situation possible.

What’s the answer, I don’t know I don’t have the information to make the decision. The limited discussion on the options in the public arena is dissappointing

Are we in breach of the resolution? I doubt it, but scrutiny should be welcomed, there is an always acknowledgement that military action causes civilian casualties those voting at the UN knew this. My view is that killing civilians never wins hearts and minds.

HTH

If we had not got involved the armed rebellion against the recognised government would have fizzled out / been put down by now.

By what right do we intervene in another country? WE don’t intevene in identical situations elsewhere and anyone who thinks our intervention is going to reduce casualties is naive

As for breaches of the resolution – its all there in the media if you want to see it – from clear example ( arming of teh rebels) to bombing non military targets to clearly taking sides. there is also experts in international law stating it.

The most stupid thing tho is Cameron is repeating Blairs mistakes. That is just unbelievable and unforgivable. No plan. no endgame, open ended commitment with continual mission creep

TandemJeremy – Member
I have contempt for plastic soldiers and armchair warriors who would send our young men to die on flimsy pretexts to satisfy their egos and who argue for military intervention without understanding the trauma of it. Especially those who exaggerate their military credentials to do so. Walts I believe you call them

go on quote people, name and shame, who has exaggerated their military credentials?

Anyone who has done military service, whether it be for 20 weeks or 20 years, or be stacking shelves in a REME workshop or jumping out of planes for the SAS deserves our respect and gratitude. We have the best and most diciplined army in the world and to try to separate military personell into “real” soldiers and other is denegrating the whole army.
Also, military service is not required to have a valid opinion on such matters, it gives you a different perspective but its a slippery slope to call that opinion more valid than that of a civilians.

Anyhow, I have watched plenty of war movies, including True Lies (that has the Middle East in it), so I know what I am talking about.

Pity Blair didn’t watch more war movies. Maybe then he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq and maybe then he would have been at the wedding?

If we had not got involved the armed rebellion against the recognised government would have fizzled out / been put down by now.

While you’re at it can you give me tomorrow’s lottery numbers?

TJ – I’ll ask you again

Reread the posts, and show me one post that calls for military intervention, that was not posted by you!

Come on – answer the question!

Here:

If you called me that to my face, I’d give you a piece of my mind

Bit antagonistic, in’t it? Veiled threat of violence?

Warmongering then. 😀

If you called me that to my face, I’d give you a piece of my cake

That’s more like it. Why can’t we all just get along?

Maybe he has maybe he hasn’t bu at least he’s brave enough to wear the uniform unlike yourself TJ

How do you know how ‘brave’ TJ is or isnt? Simply putting on a uniform isn’t a guarantee the wearer is brave. Some of the bravest people I’ve known have never put on a military uniform.

Anyone who has done military service, whether it be for 20 weeks or 20 years, or be stacking shelves in a REME workshop or jumping out of planes for the SAS deserves our respect and gratitude.

Really? ‘Anyone’?

Why should we have to blindly worship all* those in the armed forces? Can you explain please?

*Don’t get all twisty; obviously some people in the armed forces are incredibly brave and fully deserving of our utmost respect and gratitude. Just not ‘all’.

Elfin – Yes, Anyone, even Billy Bragg 😀

TJ – I’ll break down your claims and tackle them one by one:

As for breaches of the resolution – its all there in the media if you want to see it – from clear example ( arming of teh rebels)

The Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory

Where, precisely, is this prohibited in the UN Resolution?

to bombing non military targets

I’ll Quote from the Rome Statutes what would constitute a War Crime
Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

Now can you please Identify a specific non military target that has been deliberately attacked by the Coalition

to clearly taking sides.

I tackled your claims regards this on page one:

To do so would be an act of retaliation, and illegal under the UN mandate – the mandate only allows action to protect civilians under threat of attack not to punish the rebels for an attack thats already taken place – the NATO force can only legally take action against the rebels if they believe they are threatening to attack civilians in the future! By your own admission, any deaths to civilians caused by the rebels have been caused by indiscriminate fire, not deliberate targetting of civilians.

there is also experts in international law stating it.

You know what they say about experts…

Never said blindly worship, and clearly as with every walk of life there will be some “bad ‘un’s”. But those joining the military normally do so for with good intentions/motives (even if sometimes naive). If you accept that we need a military, then I suggest that the one we have is a good one and those individuals that make it up collectively deserve our gratitude. Of course if you think we should not have armed forces then there is no need for any gratitude.

cheers big n daft I dont tend to disagre with you when you post reasoned stuff… I am not sure which one of us should be most worried by that 😉

CHB – point is simple -= those who have been under fire tend to be far less gung ho about military adventurism than those who haven’t.

On that basis I challenged the pro intervention types on here to state what their service was unsuprisingly none of them have served under fire.

Zulu – waffle on all you like. No one is paying any attention.

Ah – the TJ run away defence!

Specific questions TJ – not waffle, specific questions, politely asked, and entirely relevant to your claims! You’ve made specific allegations, back them up!

i) show me one post that calls for military intervention, that was not posted by you!

ii) can you please Identify a specific non military target that has been deliberately attacked by the coalition

C’mon – answer!

You should go into digging tunnels, Z-11, you’d be very good at it.

Junkyard – Member
cheers big n daft I dont tend to disagre with you when you post reasoned stuff… I am not sure which one of us should be most worried by that

based on the personal mudslinging directed at me I suggest that you should be worried. Some people on the forum see things in black and white and feel happy to make sweeping generalisations in one context and rail against them in another. All I do is ask questions about the information that supports their view. This seems to upset them and the name calling starts.

at the end of the day it’s an internet forum and doesn’t really matter. If you really care about something stand for political office and make the changes you want to see happen.

HTH

Re the rebels killing civillians: there is a difference between collateral damage and deliberate targeting.

Are we arming them? We’re allowing them to be armed, which is different.

To those talking about armed insurrection against, “the legitimate leader of Libya”, putting down any protest through force for 42 years is hardly legitimate is it? I guess the rebels figured that an unarmed insurrection was likely to be unsuccessful.

Those who ask whether we would support a foreign power intervening militarily in the UK to support protest against our Govt; yes I would, if the Tories ruthlessly seized power and put down any opposition through force for 40-odd years. As we have the good luck to live in a democracy, though, the analysis is total hoop!

denegrating the whole army.

Whole Armed Forces!

The argument about Qadhafi being a legitimate target as CinC of the Libyan Armed Forces, if not as head of state, may be convenient but it’s true!

The argument about Qadhafi being a legitimate target as CinC of the Libyan Armed Forces, if not as head of state, may be convenient but it’s true!

Not according to our prime minister – he reckons that it’s not true. He has emphatically stated that Gaddafi is not a target.

Mmm who to believe, Zulu-Eleven or David Cameron ?……….it’s a difficult one ain’t it ?

Oooh – tricky one. Is there a “neither of the above” option?

😆

putting down any protest through force for 42 years is hardly legitimate is it?

Of course not, but try telling the British forces in NI that.

I’d love at least “ok, I was wrong in that assertion, but….” from TandemJeremy

Come on, do it, do it. No-one’s that ridiculously stubborn, are they?

Oh and for the record, it was me that double-tapped Osama.
Good enough credentials?

Feefoo – whare was I wrong? Show me I was and I will accept it.

The UK force are acting in obvious breach of UN resolution and they killed a load of civilians the other day.

Give me the evidence of the “obvious” breach.

As Zulu said:

ii) can you please Identify a specific non military target that has been deliberately attacked by the coalition

If you have no evidence then it is just conjecture, not fact.

Feefoo – nothing Zulu says is worth responding to.

Obvious breech – clear bias in not deterring the rebel side from causing civilian deaths, supporting the arming of the rebel side, assaaination attempts.

Plenty of news reports of the civilian deaths

specific non military target. Gaddaffis compound. Civilian deaths acceptable there.

Of course it is just opinion, However the evidence is there.

Some discussion here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/libya-bombing-un-resolution-law

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110418/163580733.html

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72U1H920110331