• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

Poll: DELETED_74993

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 306 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 295 49.1%
  • Total voters
    601
Status
Not open for further replies.
ringo747 said:
Why can't I find the online shop on that website?! :)
Click to expand...

Visa Secure rejected my payment. :D

tomahawk2.jpg
 
USA sent a B2 stealth bomber all the way from USA. 6000 mile round trip I think non stop

War is not without economic benefits.
Click to expand...

War is destructive, surprisingly people dying is not a means of wealth production collectively.
The only way all this could be a positive is if less people die in the post regime Libya area then otherwise and those people are far more productive.

Its possible but its what the people do after the war not the war itself which produces any positive benefit



Of course there is the old argument USA will get cheaper oil from a friendly nation, etc

Trillions are spent, USA uses about 6.8bn barrels of oil a year. So for every trillion spent per year then need the oil price to drop 1.50 dollars to register a gain I think
bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
Click to expand...

Oil price has risen from 30 to over 100 so the war to win wealth policy seems flawed. 12 years ago it was 10 dollars a barrel

MBN6k.gif
 
Last edited:
amigafan2003 said:
But yes - a US missile. So the US pay for a missile to a US firm. That US firm pay taxes, as do it's employees. That US firm then invests in the US economy. Do you think the $600,000 unit cost actually costs the US government $600,000 in the long run? More like $200,000 in reality.
Click to expand...

If your maths is correct that is still $200,000 a pop that the US government has to find at a time when they are squeasing the finances as hard as anyone else in the world.

The sums of money involved are massive and proping up private industry with government money is hardly a sound economic policy.

If you combine the hideous cost with the dubious motivation then this war stinks and the stench is only going to get worse as the costs increase. We will inevitably kill a significant number of Libiyan civillians as we have done Iraqi and Afghan and correctly we will be vilified for it further fueling the extremists while the UK economy suffers.
 
Robboftw said:
Well someone is inevitably going to have to do something on the ground, but we might be able to wriggle out of it and let the Frenchies sort it out, hopefully.
Click to expand...

It would be UN forces if anything, this isnt the Iraq war


To be fair uk forces already landed a few times I think just not in any great numbers. The rebel forces actually captured one mission for a while, wondering who was landing in the middle of their city


"La France frappe la première en Libye" "France Strikes First" is the headline all over French papers. They seem to be very proud $$
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
silversurfer said:
Those assets belong to the Libyan people if anything.
Click to expand...

All your base belong to us.


OldCoals said:
How do troops on ground differ from an occupying force?
Click to expand...

It doesn't?


Although having Special Forces on thr ground for target aquisition/intelligence gathering/infrastructure strikes etc is generally accepted NOT to be an occupying force.

I'm sure we already have SAS guys there.



Honestly, the apologists in this thread are really starting to tick me off. You'll be pressing Cam to say sorry for the slave trade next.

We're a nation born out of invasion and warfare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But we can't stop pro Gaddafi forces killing civilians by flying Tornados and Typhoons over Libya.

The only way that stops is by putting troops on the ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom