Poll: DELETED_74993

[Castiel]

Just done a quick read up about the friendly fire incident at the falklands.

For anyone who is interested:

Blue On Blue

On the night of June 2nd a 'friendly fire' incident took place between the SAS and the Special Boat Squadron (SBS). An SBS patrol had apparently strayed into the SAS patrol's designated area and were mistaken for Argentine forces. A brief firefight was initiated during which one of the SBS patrol, Sergeant Ian Hunt, was gunned down. This tragic incident was the catalyst for improved cooperation between the rival units.

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/history/falklands/

Another SBS member was also injured in the fracas. The SAS ambushed the SBS patrol by mistake.

It happens, and poor communication is alwys a risk, especially back then. Blue on Blue is just the term for 'friendly fire'

 

[[TW]Fox]

No he isn't he's pretty much hit the nail on the head, we've interjected into another countries civil war because we want their oil

Cool, we are going to get free oil out of this?

The way I see it we were happily able to buy Gaddafis oil at market rate before this all kicked off, so obviously if this is about the oil we must be going to get some sort of great deal out of it right?

Our oil firms already had contracts in Libya before all this, so what great improvement are we going to get that makes this all 'about the oil'?

 

[Kenai]

Cool, we are going to get free oil out of this?

The way I see it we were happily able to buy Gaddafis oil at market rate before this all kicked off, so obviously if this is about the oil we must be going to get some sort of great deal out of it right?

Our oil firms already had contracts in Libya before all this, so what great improvement are we going to get that makes this all 'about the oil'?

Stability of supply, if things took a nose dive over there due to all this, they want to ensure that the outcome is favourable to us and maintaining our supply.

It doesn't have to be about getting 'free oil' for our reasons to get involved to be oil related.

There were whisperings before this all kicked off that Gaddafi was going to start sabotaging pipelines. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-oil-time-idUSTRE71L6TK20110222

And when you have Gaddafi saying things like "Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms. The West is to be forgotten." then it's no surprise that the West might want to stick their oar into proceedings to try and make sure that someone a bit more 'on side' comes out on top when it's all said and done.

 

[Bungee]

Another SBS member was also injured in the fracas. The SAS ambushed the SBS patrol by mistake.

It happens, and poor communication is alwys a risk, especially back then. Blue on Blue is just the term for 'friendly fire'

So other than this one time, have the sas ever shot up their own side? Seems a little unfair of you to say the sas are known for gunning down their own if its just happened the once and it sounds like the sbs fault anyway

 

[EdGey]

Could have happend to anyone I think. Most important thing is that they learn from it, which it looks like they did.

Closer co-operation, and soon after...

Also the SAS and SBS are no longer separate commands and have not been since the late 80's. SAS/SBS are under the same UKSF umbrella.

So hopefully its a thing of the past.

 

[ubersonic]

Cool, we are going to get free oil out of this?

The way I see it we were happily able to buy Gaddafis oil at market rate before this all kicked off, so obviously if this is about the oil we must be going to get some sort of great deal out of it right?

Our oil firms already had contracts in Libya before all this, so what great improvement are we going to get that makes this all 'about the oil'?

Yes, we will be able to keep getting it, basically Gaddafi knows that Cameron was trying to do sneaky deals with the rebels to ensure BP maintained their oil contracts in Libya if the rebels won the civil war, because this came out (Cameron's MI6 envoy was captured on arrival by the rebels along with his SAS escort) Gaddafi has said he will be kicking BP out of Libya as soon as this is over, it was at that point that plans for a no fly zone and our involvement in general went into overdrive, as it stands were practically the rebels air force at this point not just peacekeepers were actively fighting on behalf of one side in another countries civil war (and their still losing).

 

[[TW]Fox]

Plans for a no-fly zone were what caused Gaddafi to throw his toys out of the pram oil wise in the first place. Had we done absolutely nothing and not even have commented on the situation in the first place - as presumably you would have wanted us to do - then he'd have had no reason to make any of those comments.

 

[Castiel]

So other than this one time, have the sas ever shot up their own side? Seems a little unfair of you to say the sas are known for gunning down their own if its just happened the once and it sounds like the sbs fault anyway

Well if I were entirely serious that accusation may hold some weight, however it obviously was not. Ambushing an SBS patrol however doesn't make it the SBS' fault either. Anyway it was meant in a joking, friendly rivalry way, not as a serious denigration of the ability or integrity of the SAS

btw There have been a couple of cases of friendly fire incidents by the SAS in training during the 1980's. It is rare however, and these things happen, such is the risks inherent in the job.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Our oil firms already had contracts in Libya before all this, so what great improvement are we going to get that makes this all 'about the oil'?

I think our oil firms will be kicked out of any area under the control of Gaddafi.

I was thinking about other possible excuses for intervention. Sarkosy has a Presidential election coming up and is trailing. He wants to do anything to boost his popularity.

Cameron has a shed load of bad news from April 1 as taxes etc kick in and lots of unpopular policy, NHS etc.

What better way to deflect public attention than a military excursion for regime change, sorry, humanitarian mission abroad.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Now the intervention might last a bit longer than expected. Just as well the country has loads of money otherwise we will see more cuts due to Cameron's folly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12953714

 

[Danthus]

Cool, we are going to get free oil out of this?

The way I see it we were happily able to buy Gaddafis oil at market rate before this all kicked off, so obviously if this is about the oil we must be going to get some sort of great deal out of it right?

Our oil firms already had contracts in Libya before all this, so what great improvement are we going to get that makes this all 'about the oil'?

I think our oil firms will be kicked out of any area under the control of Gaddafi.

I was thinking about other possible excuses for intervention. Sarkosy has a Presidential election coming up and is trailing. He wants to do anything to boost his popularity.

Cameron has a shed load of bad news from April 1 as taxes etc kick in and lots of unpopular policy, NHS etc.

What better way to deflect public attention than a military excursion for regime change, sorry, humanitarian mission abroad.

Look at the map, the rebels are in control of most of the major oil infrastructure.

Is it a shock that those areas are no Gaddafi free?

 

[reefoid]

Stability of supply, if things took a nose dive over there due to all this, they want to ensure that the outcome is favourable to us and maintaining our supply.

It doesn't have to be about getting 'free oil' for our reasons to get involved to be oil related.

There were whisperings before this all kicked off that Gaddafi was going to start sabotaging pipelines. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-oil-time-idUSTRE71L6TK20110222

And when you have Gaddafi saying things like "Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms. The West is to be forgotten." then it's no surprise that the West might want to stick their oar into proceedings to try and make sure that someone a bit more 'on side' comes out on top when it's all said and done.

Why would we be so worried about the oil from a country that only produces around 3% of global supply (these are 2009 figures, most recent I could find)? According to this even the UK produces more oil so it would seem like a lot of bother for little gain.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Look at the map, the rebels are in control of most of the major oil infrastructure.

Is it a shock that those areas are no Gaddafi free?

It is not over yet. Rebels are still going backwards. Gaddafi's forces are passed Ras Lanuf and don't have to go that much further to have the lion's share. If they did a flank move they could go after the oil fields in the south-east they don't control leaving the rebels with an oil refinery with no oil to refine.

 

[arknor]

Why would we be so worried about the oil from a country that only produces around 3% of global supply (these are 2009 figures, most recent I could find)? According to this even the UK produces more oil so it would seem like a lot of bother for little gain.

still one of if not the best quality crude oil supplies in the world though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12548471

However, oil industry analyst Mehdi Varzi told the BBC World Service that he estimated that the unrest could be affecting "up to a third" of Libya's total crude oil exports.

Mr Varzi said it would be difficult to compensate for the loss of these supplies.

"They are of extremely high quality in terms of crude... and this kind of crude is very difficult to replace, even if the Saudis want to replace it."

oil prices were rising even before it all kicked off doesnt take a rocket scientist to see why france , america and the usa got involved so quick

He added that there could be "more instability and possible further oil price rises".

If Libyan supplies went completely offline then in the short term the price of crude could rise by another $10 or $20 a barrel, Mehdi Varzi said.

However, if unrest spread further throughout the region then the situation would become much more serious, and develop "a fully fledged international oil price crisis", he added.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Now the intervention might last a bit longer than expected. Just as well the country has loads of money otherwise we will see more cuts due to Cameron's folly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12953714

So at £2 to £3 million a day that works out at over £300 million over six months!!

 

[The Running Man]

Its interesting to note the ivory coast situation continues to deteriorate as I mentioned much earlier in the thread and that even with UN eyes and feet on the ground as witnesses - and we still do nothing despite possibly 1000 dead.

Ah we are doing something, withdrawing UN staff ad it's no longer safe. How do the politicians get away with such lies and scandal? I just don't get it.

 

[Danthus]

Its interesting to note the ivory coast situation continues to deteriorate as I mentioned much earlier in the thread and that even with UN eyes and feet on the ground as witnesses - and we still do nothing despite possibly 1000 dead.

Ah we are doing something, withdrawing UN staff ad it's no longer safe. How do the politicians get away with such lies and scandal? I just don't get it.

No to mention what is still happening in the Yemen.

 

[reefoid]

Its interesting to note the ivory coast situation continues to deteriorate as I mentioned much earlier in the thread and that even with UN eyes and feet on the ground as witnesses - and we still do nothing despite possibly 1000 dead.

Ah we are doing something, withdrawing UN staff ad it's no longer safe. How do the politicians get away with such lies and scandal? I just don't get it.

A no-fly zone is not appropriate there, so the only other non-diplomatic solution would be feet on the ground which (a) would be a political and legal no-no and (b) as you state the UN are already there.

You've criticised them for doing nothing, but haven't said what you would like the politicians to do?

 

[Danthus]

A no-fly zone is not appropriate there, so the only other non-diplomatic solution would be feet on the ground which (a) would be a political and legal no-no and (b) as you state the UN are already there.

You've criticised them for doing nothing, but haven't said what you would like the politicians to do?

Go the UN and get a mandate to intervene in order to stop the humanitarian crisis?

 

[reefoid]

Go the UN and get a mandate to intervene in order to stop the humanitarian crisis?

So feet on the ground then? Lots of people are criticising us for getting involved from the air in what is now a rebel war in Libya, and you think it would be a good idea to put our forces on the ground in another one?

No chance.