Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Special Farces: SAS Humiliated In Libyan Operation

I thought Ming Campbell was the most direct... in criticising Hague ..

Ming was the only person in the chamber that didn't seem to get it.

Everyone else seemed to accept the idea that 'something was going on' that Hague wasn't about to spill the beans on on national tv, and pretty much accepted it.
 
Ming was the only person in the chamber that didn't seem to get it.

Everyone else seemed to accept the idea that 'something was going on' that Hague wasn't about to spill the beans on on national tv, and pretty much accepted it.

Well there is that.

It does seem to have been a very strange mission indeed.
 
If state-controlled and/or military planes have been landing in Libya without permission, that's a violation of sovereignty, yes, and illegal under international law. The invasion of Grenada was also to "protect our nationals": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

Everyone else seemed to accept the idea that 'something was going on' that Hague wasn't about to spill the beans on on national tv, and pretty much accepted it.

"I spy strangers".
 
Was SBS not SAS and they could easily have blasted their way free, but that wasn't what they were there for.

Apart from the Iranian embassy siege when they were caught on camera, has anyone ever heard of the government talking about a special forces mission whilst it is still ongoing? Me neither, bet yer bollocks what really was going on was very different to what's been reported.

I'm no fan of the military, but if I were on a train or plane that's been hijacked, these are the guys I'd want coming to my rescue. For all those quick to sneer at them, you can have the French come to your rescue. I'll send flowers to your funeral.
 
at least they didn't take the tiger with them,



I hear the team photo is already plastered all over their barrack room walls:

muppet_movie_cast.jpg
 
Why is it that when a policy goes wrong, the Minister in charge has no hesitationin blaming the civil servants or workers charged with implementing their brilliant strategy, and will only admit culpability under extreme duress (this was after all what the famous Paxman/Howard confrontation was initially about). But when a military operation goes belly up, the defence minister takes full responsibility immediately and the 'special' (as in 'special needs' perhaps) forces get off scot free. It seems that UK ministers aren't allowed to criticise these public employees.

Even when British forces were caught in iranian waters and began cracking when their Ipods were brutally placed in the teacher's desk, there was no official sanction. Yet when a social worker, teacher or council worker screws up Ministers are first to condemn them.....
 
Why is it that when a policy goes wrong, the Minister in charge has no hesitationin blaming the civil servants or workers charged with implementing their brilliant strategy, and will only admit culpability under extreme duress (this was after all what the famous Paxman/Howard confrontation was initially about). But when a military operation goes belly up, the defence minister takes full responsibility immediately and the 'special' (as in 'special needs' perhaps) forces get off scot free. It seems that UK ministers aren't allowed to criticise these public employees.

Even when British forces were caught in iranian waters and began cracking when their Ipods were brutally placed in the teacher's desk, there was no official sanction. Yet when a social worker, teacher or council worker screws up Ministers are first to condemn them.....

Maybe because military operations are inherently more risky and uncertain than most other things?

Giles..
 
I'm no fan of the military, but if I were on a train or plane that's been hijacked, these are the guys I'd want coming to my rescue. For all those quick to sneer at them, you can have the French come to your rescue. I'll send flowers to your funeral.

Why is it so popular to sneer at the French?

From the War Nerd

The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history, supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:

www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to hear: these sites are total bullshit, the notion that the French are cowards is total bullshit, and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world.

Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate Chirac too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry 'do and the snotty smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the French: ignorant fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful
 
War Nerd was mocking the fashionable franco-hatred in americans who forget where thier past lies and who their friends were.

We english have a long and glorious tradition of france hating. Scots do not (auld alliance). If the yanks want to hate on france they should send the statue back.
 
We must sneer at the French. It's in the rules.


I wasn't sneering though, French special forces have a policy of just shooting fuck out of everyone in a hostage situation. Does kind of make the bad guys think twice about messing with them. Just rather unfortunate if you're one of the hostages.
 
Thing is everybody seems to have been/is sending in small units to secure/protect interests and "rescue" foreign nationals, look at the Cloggys that were captured. Hardly could be called a unilateral invasion really.

Article 3 "in accordance with the provisions of article 2", defines certain acts as aggression, such as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression.

Of course you wouldn't expect the major European powers to respect international law when it comes to smaller states in crisis. Just because they're our boys, gawd love 'em, stick it up your junta, it doesn't make it any more legal even if it makes it more palatable to you. For the sake of short term gain, Hague (and others) has again undermined a principle that could work to protect millions of people: that unilateral aggression should not take place and should be sanctioned by the UN through the Security Council. Given that the UK is involved in that aggression, it will veto any action in the UN SC and the UN SC will become (or, more likely, remain) an ineffective body for preventing and reversing aggression, except when it's a naughty person that "we" don't like that does it.

Maybe because military operations are inherently more risky and uncertain than most other things?

The Westminster system is supposed to run on the principle of Ministerial Responsibility where ministers and not civil servants take responsibility for the successes and failures of their department. Can't remember when the last time a minister resigned for a fuckup that wasn't his own, though. Carrington after Falklands Invasion?
 
jwh
once a country has descended int civil war asking permission of a goverment that no longer controls territory is academic.
The idea that tryants have some sort of international status worthrespecting sticks in my gut.

social workers and teachers don't command snipers:) ( although I know a few social workers who belive snipers have a role in social work if only to cull management:))
 
@JWH
What (in this case) is the "unilateral aggression" that has taken place? Firstly there are several states involved evacuating their nationals and secondly although the unit was armed (which is a sensible move in a country that's going through a civil conflict) no use was made of those weapons (which is also sensible considering the people who were holding them were on the side of the people who they were there to meet).

What would you think of a UN sanctioned no-fly zone?

What would you think of Ghaddafi's aircraft being brought down by US, UK or other aircraft under such a mandate?
 
Back
Top Bottom