This is Roderick Louis's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Roderick Louis's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Roderick Louis
Recent Activity
How is monetary union among EU member nations necessary for meeting the EU's (and predecessor EEC's) initial main purposes: maintaining peace on the Continent and eliminating intolerance, inequitable social programmes, flawed justice systems and persecution of minorities?? ------------------------ The 'unification of Europe's countries' is a laudable objective, but not if unification means that Europe's countries cease to be independent, sovereign nations and become, in effect and function, 'provinces' of an amalgamated EU super-state... The United Kingdom and countries of Europe 'can be united' without becoming amalgamated into a unitary super-state... Being united for good purposes* can be ably achieved by the alignment, to varying degrees & levels, of EU member nations' social, economic, finance and legal policies/laws... France's voters had the good sense- via a referendum- to reject the EU Constitution treaty in 2005: "French say firm 'No' to EU treaty", 30_05-2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm "EU constitution: Where member states stand", 25_03-2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm It's highly outrageous that the EU Constitution's hurriedly concocted mirror image replacement- the mis-named EU Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty)- was not put before France's and ALL other EU member nations' voters in referendums... The not well publicized- but plainly highly prioritized- consequential development of an EU armed forces (navy, airforce and land forces) evidences how far from the EU/EEC's original purposes that some high-placed Brussels-based politicians and bureaucrats are willing to go (and where these persons' mind-sets are...)... What does an "EU military", with its own navy, airforce and land forces- with bases, missions and extensive presence world-wide- have to do with the EEC/EU's initial main purposes: stopping wars, injustices and persecution of minorities on the Continent as well as improving individual countries' democratic structures?? ============= The current debt and budget deficit problems afflicting many of the EU's member nations should not be allowed to be used as a false excuse for further illegitimate subsumation of member nations into what is for all intents and purposes, an undergoing construction super-state!! Instead, the current debt and budget deficit problems ought to be responsibly used as a basis for the facilitation of multi-question referendums IN EVERY EU MEMBER COUNTRY asking voters (at the minimum): 1) are they for or against their country becoming, in effect, a 'province' of a unitary, fully-amalgamated, EU super-state? 2) are they for or against an EU in which the EU Parliament, EU (Council of Ministers) President, EU military, EU Foreign Minister and the new EU overseas 'embassies' were abolished?? ________________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
What does an "EU military", with its own navy, airforce and land forces- with bases, missions and extensive presence world-wide- have to do with the EEC/EU's initial main purposes: stopping wars, injustices and persecution of minorities on the Continent as well as improving individual countries' democratic structures?? Would Sir Winston Churchill have approved of- let alone endorsed- such? In the years immediately following the end of WWII's hostilities- when discussions were occurring among western Europe's + the UK's and US's leading politicians as to what sort of interlinking, cooperative structures ought to be established in order to maintain peace and to facilitate constructive relationships between western Europe's countries- how many of these discussions' participants said that they wanted ALL of the Continent's countries to eventually be subsumed into a unitary country- a super-state- which rivalled the United States in global roles and presence?? =============== Why are high-placed EU member-nation politicians and EU officials pushing for an EU military force, entirely separate from NATO with its own navy, airforce and land forces?? Why are Brussels bureaucrats pushing for an "EU military" with missions and presence world-wide?? Why are France's highest naval officials openly advocating "an EU navy", comparable in size and capabilities to the U.S.Navy's?? How dangerous would an EU Super-state, with a military the size of the Americans- and with leaders having egos three times as big- be on the world stages???? The UK Royal Navy's 2010 SDSR-ordered decimation: being done to intellectually dishonestly 'justify' the UK's subsumation into an EU 'Superstate'- starting with a merged UK/France naval force?? "Aircraft Carriers: (France Defence Minister) Herve Morin calls for cooperation with the British", 27_10-2010: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=114397 (requires translation): "With the approach of the Franco-British summit ..., (France's) defense minister called for a strengthening of cooperation between UK and France naval battle groups... "... The head of France's Navy goes even further by introducing (France's planned PA2) aircraft carrier as the tool par excellence of political and military power. "'If we want the EU to exist, it must have as many aircraft carriers as the Americans... "'It should therefore be a dozen, as against only one (CDG) today...'" ---------------- ->> The wording at the top of this EU web site unequivocally makes plain what Brussels based officials are attempting- and being enabled by the recently ratified Lisbon Treaty (EU Constitution by another name!!): http://consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/csdp-structures-and-instruments/eu-military-staff.aspx?lang=en - "European Union: EXTERNAL ACTION "Providing Military Capabilities To The EU..." ->> The linked-to pamphlet on the above page: http://consilium.europa.eu/media/1255855/eums%20september%202011.pdf ... contains a table cross-referencing "EU military force"/presence with world regions such as Asia, Africa, Middle East... From pamphlet: "(the) EU is conducting its seventh military operation/ mission..." ----------------- The truth is that there will always be a significant percentage of the populations of the Continent's 'countries-which-previously-had-colonial-empires' that wish to use the EU as a vehicle to advance and facilitate improper geopolitical agendas... ... Improper geopolitical agendas that their own countries, by themselves, could not be used for due to being too small and without adequate resources... ________________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
The EU (predecessor EEC) was established more than 60-years ago mainly as a way of preventing countries on the Continent continuing the previous six-centuries' pattern of systemic intolerance, persecution of minorities, inequitable legal systems, ego-driven militarism, destructive nationalism and continual wars... These laudable objectives and purposes do not require the EU/EEC becoming a super-state into which have been subsumed all of its member countries... The alignment- to varying degrees and levels- of the principles and structures governing and underpinning member countries' economic, social and legal policies and laws is all that is required for this.... An EU that is not continually at war with itself: does not require monetary union; does not require its own parliament, elected or otherwise; does not require its own 'foreign minister'; does not require its own- separate from NATO- armed forces; does not require its own president... Those that demand the above are driven more by empire-building objectives and vanity than by wanting the Continent to not revert back to a place of continual wars, conflicts and dysfunctional democracies...
1 reply
"Defence cash deal to plug ‘funding gap’": http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d819bf42-b15a-11e0-9444-00144feab49a.html "... The extra money will secure several individual equipment programmes, including extra Chinook helicopters, three new intelligence and surveillance aircraft and upgraded Warrior armoured vehicles. "But it falls short of the 2 per cent real terms increase in the overall defence budget army chiefs and defence experts argued would be needed to fund the government’s vision of the armed forces in 2020..."
1 reply
"UK blocks plans for 'EU command'", 18_07-2011: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=16927 - ..."Plans for a single European command and control facility (were) 'immediately' blocked by Foreign Secretary William Hague..."
1 reply
If Libya's NATO-member-nation supported 'revolution' for a human rights-based, secular democracy fails- the 'Arab spring' will fail with horrendous repercussions across the Muslim world!! Rather than questioning the UK's continued involvement in Libya operations and the costs associated with this, the news media ought to be reporting on the vast, incalculably damaging consequences of NATO nations' failure to see the Libyan intervention through to success!! Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
The UK Getting rid of the RN's 3 dangerously obsolescent, tiny, Invincible class aircraft carriers was an unarguably long overdue decision... If the previous Labour govt had followed the advice in its (1997) Strategic Defence and Security Review, the 3 Invincible class carriers would have been replaced with 2 or possibly 3 'big deck' aircraft carriers today... with the last of these vessels entering service by early next year... The UK needs viable, technologically up-to-date aircraft carriers NOW, not in 2022!! Towards finding solutions to this issue, the UK govt ought to be creatively strategizing with close allies- and discussing with the public- 'how' the Royal Navy's current aircraft carrier crisis can be fixed... Are there no reliable allies of the UK that could be approached to lend the UK aircraft carriers?? With its stretched defence budget and severe fiscal and trade deficits, the United States govt could welcome prospects of reducing its navy's costs for a decade- by a trusted international partner with a universally esteemed naval history in effect, subsidizing and co-administering a small proportion of the US's international naval presence and duties... If a temporary induction to the Royal Navy of a Nimitz class supercarrier occurred, this would- in the immediate term- enable the RN to re-generate and maintain naval fast-jet capabilities and to practise legitimate 'aircraft carrier battle group' and Amphibious Assault routines pre-2022: when the UK's currently undergoing simultaneous re-design and construction 'big deck' aircraft carriers are due to be completed and the aircraft designed to be deployed off them acquired... Similarly, manning a Nimitz class supercarrier with a mixed-crew of US and UK service personnel- including experienced US Commanders- could work well and have many productive benefits for both countries... And following this procedure would only significantly improve US Navy and Royal Navy interoperability and collaboration generally 2011- 2030... So, why set objectives so low (while self-flagellating the country) and continue aiming for the not-clearly-defined-decade-down-the-road when taking bold but financially careful steps now could have vastly better outcomes both for the country's standing in the world and its long term future??
1 reply
A UK top table firm such as Rolls-Royce partnered with a high-speed train & nuclear power station manufacturer such as Hitachi could- using Rolls' internationally esteemed & invaluable 'brand' along with its extensive high technology & power generation expertise- become a legitimate world-class high-speed train & nuclear power competitor... ... entering markets that can only expand substantially & reliably for the long-term... both in EU member nations & developing countries like China, India & in East Asia... In a similar transport-industry-related theme, Rolls partnering with companies that specialize in bus & or mass-transit technologies to produce Rolls-Royce buses &/or other types of people-movers could only become an internationally competitive player... Canada's Westport Innovations: http://www.westport.com/ produces kit that converts diesel fueled engines into (natural) gas driven types... Westport partnered with a prestigious, highly capable company like Rolls-Royce in the production of 'clean' gas-powered (diesel-design) engines could only make inroads to bus & similar types of vehicles... which are a 'coming market'... in both the EU & developing world countries... ______________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
In 2006- reportedly due to pressure from the then Chancellor- in an absurdly short-sighted attempt to balance the UK's then comparatively very healthy economic books, the then Labour govt forced British Nuclear Fuels to sell its nuclear power unit: nuclear power station designer/builder Westinghouse- to Japan's Toshiba*- destroying the UK's best chance of at having an 'exportable nuclear power industry' and wrecking possibilities of the UK 'building its own' nuclear reactors to produce power for the country... 2 years later, the Labour govt facilitated contracts with France's part-French-govt-owned AREVA and EDF companies to build new reactors for the UK... Today, Toshiba is bidding for and winning huge contracts to build nuclear reactors across the world- using Westinghouse's designs and technology: http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212700543 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1920307,00.html http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSPEK24932420090928 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/13/russia-eyes-uk-nuclear-power-market Rolls-Royce (with its extensive nuclear technology skill-base) could partner with Japan's Toshiba & its Westinghouse Nuclear Division->> and incorporate Saudi and/or U.A.E. Sovereign Wealth Fund assets to form a new multi-national nuclear power generation firm- based in London... The company's new and existing reactor designs could be used in the UK & exported around the world, especially to the booming energy markets of China and India->> thereby creating long term high technology and manufacturing jobs for the UK, Japan, & the U.A.E./Saudi's etc. Actively defining- WITH BUSINESS LEADERS' PARTICIPATION- UK manufacturing-related-industry sector direction & general UK economy strategic objectives should be a high priority of the UK govt... Continued laisez faire economic policy run amok will leave the UK but a savaged skeleton of its industrial past & without a future->> all of its world leading & potentially world beating companies snapped up by other nations' state supported/subsidized companies.. While state intervention into industry is usually undesirable, take a look at France/Germany's highly successful 'state-assisted' nuclear power, banking, energy, software, automobile, high-speed-train manufacturing & other companies. Barely a week goes by without these countries' firms obtaining huge foreign-country contracts for their state-owned/subsidized firms (rail, shipbuilding, military-related, infrastructure, etc)... The UK doesn't have to sit on the sidelines while this continues- & allow the manufacturing-related sectors of its economy to further degenerate... With sufficient funding & a little creative govt negotiation assistance, UK firms could be producing world-beating high-speed trains; nuclear power plants & environmentally friendly public transport systems, such as gas-powered buses... Constructively resolving & rectifying the economic stupidity of the previous Labour govt directing the sale of British Energy's Westinghouse Nuclear unit won't be possible if the current UK govt, to use a Canadian expression- refuses to 'stick handle' the UK's economy more than in the past: Business-support programme funding ought to be made available to capable UK companies that would benefit from diversification & expansion/making foreign acquisitions/forming joint-ventures with foreign firms: IE 'bulking-up'... Without this, the UK industry base will remain at high risk of continuing the over-one-decade trend: further evisceration by the best UK companies being bought up- all-to-often at rock-bottom prices- by foreign firms... firms that are not infrequently state owned/state supported... The UK could lead all EU member & other world nations in the quality, capabilities & capacities of its people, goods & electronic-data moving infrastructure (IE high-speed & other rail; roads; public-transport & Internet to businesses & homes)... Without BOLD CONCISE govt facilitation- working with business- laying out a broad, nation-wide 'road-map' for how, at what cost & when these objectives will be reached->> they can not reasonably be expected ever to be... A long-term UK industrial & economic development strategy needs to be clearly laid out by govt working with business leaders... ______________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada * Westinghouse was sold to Toshiba in 2006 over the loud objections of British Energy's senior management, apparently as a way of Labour satiating its pathological economic short sightedness and tunnel-visioned budgetary hypocrisy...
1 reply
UK COMPANIES NOT GETTING 'FAIR'- UK BASED- WORK SHARE IN VITAL-TO-UK-SECURITY-INTERESTS MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE VENTURES!! (constructed in France***) Aster 15 and Aster 30 anti airborne threat missiles (known as 'Sea Viper' missiles in the UK) are the main armament of the UK's new purportedly 'world beating' Type-45 Destroyers... Sea Viper missiles are fired from the France-manufactured 'sylver A50'* missile launchers-(produced by France's part state-owned 'Thales') that Type-45s are fitted with: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edequipment/edmis/edmis5a2.htm Sea Viper/Aster missiles failed 2 out 4 of the Royal Navy's test firings in 2008-2009** due to what has been termed 'manufacturing defects' by the board of inquiry investigating these test failures: "Aster missile fix identified after Sea Viper investigation", April 09-2010: http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Navy-International-2010/Aster-missile-fix-identified-after-Sea-Viper-investigation.html "An investigation has identified 'production weaknesses' in recent batches of Aster missiles, according to the (UK) MoD... "Jane's understands that the munitions' structural integrity was impaired by a production engineering change...." Why aren't the UK's Sea Viper/Aster missiles being manufactured- or at least assembled- AT FACTORIES IN THE UK??' (considering that the Sea Viper (aka 'Aster 15 and Aster 30) missile manufacturer is MBDA- and that the UK's BAE is a major shareholder in MBDA)???: http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=IT&news_id=140 : "... MBDA is jointly owned by BAE SYSTEMS (37.5%), EADS (37.5%) and FINMECCANICA (25%)": ________________ Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada * http://en.dcnsgroup.com/naval/products/sylver/?product-category=naval-equipments ** http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112629 http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Navy-International-2010/UK-probes-Sea-Viper-missile-test-failures.html "Navy's £1bn+ destroyers set to remain unarmed for years"- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_viper_paams_fail/
1 reply
Considering that the UK buys enormous amounts of defence equipment from French companies*- and has even purchased French designs for its 2 new aircraft carriers (Thales UK)**- Why couldn't one of the UK's top table firms form a partnership with or buy part of several of France's largest defence industry companies?? PART 2: 4) Long range radars fitted to the RN's new Type-45 Destroyers & planned new big deck aircraft carriers- United Kingdom selects Thales`s S1850M radar for new aircraft carriers: http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/UK_PR_RADAR_CARRIER/ http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/PressRelease.aspx?id=14994 http://www.thalesgroup.com/Markets/Defence/What_we_do/Naval_forces/Above_water_warfare/Weapon_control___Missile_Guidance_Systems/ 5) (constructed in France) Aster 15 and Aster 30 anti airborne threat missiles that are fired from 'sylver A50' launchers- http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edequipment/edmis/edmis5a2.htm ** http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm : "... Thales, a French company will provide the main design... "
1 reply
Considering that the UK buys enormous amounts of defence equipment from French companies*- and has even purchased French designs for its 2 new aircraft carriers (Thales UK)**- Why couldn't one of the UK's top table firms form a partnership with or buy part of several of France's largest defence industry companies?? ________________ Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada * 1) France's part state-owned Thales's 'Goalkeeper' 'Close In Weapons System' (CIWS) (radar guided machine guns) fitted to Royal Navy warships- http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/surface-fleet/aircraft-carriers/hms-invincible/goalkeeper/index.htm http://www.thalesgroup.com/goalkeeper/?pid=1568 http://www.thalesgroup.com/goalkeeper/ ; 2) France's part state-owned DCNS's 'sylver A50' missile launchers fitted to the RN's new Type-45 Destroyers- http://en.dcnsgroup.com/naval/produits/sylver/ http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/ ; 3) France's part state-owned Thales's various types of sonar fitted to RN submarines and surface combatants- http://www.thalesgroup.com/Markets/Defence/Portfolio/ http://www.thalesgroup.com/Markets/Defence/Home/ http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/Countries/United_Kingdom/2010/Thales_welcomes_launch_of_latest_Astute-class_submarine/
1 reply
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/uc761-iv/uc76101.htm (House of Commons' Defence Committee transcript): "Q270 Ms Stuart: I think we will return to that point of (Future Force) 2020. If you had to describe what our capability is, what would you define as the major bits that we currently cannot do, and which therefore mean we are not at full spectrum capability, other than the aircraft carrier? "Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup: Carrier strike is one. Anti-submarine warfare is another. Along with others, I made it clear in the defence review that if we went ahead with the decision to get rid of maritime patrol aircraft (Nimrod), in the circumstances of a resurgent submarine threat we would not be able to send a naval taskforce to sea unless someone else provided that capability. It was not a case of taking a bit more risk; we simply would not be able to do it, should that particular threat level rematerialise. Nobody is saying that it will or that it won’t, but we would have to look for somebody else to provide that capability. That is another fairly stark example. "Q276 Bob Stewart: I want to ask about the ASW capability. It is not just the surface fleet that would be affected by the removal of Nimrod; it is also our submarine operations, isn’t it? You didn’t say that, but I think you implied it. "Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup: Anti-submarine warfare is one of the most difficult military tasks that the armed forces carry out. It is very complex and requires a layered approach. That has been demonstrated clearly over the years, and wide area surveillance is a very important element within that. "Q277 Bob Stewart: Which we have now lost. "Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup: We have now lost that. In the light of current threats, it is a not a critical weakness, but should threat re-emerge-it could well re-emerge-it would become an important weakness. "Q287 Chair: You say that with an element of dread in your voice. "Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup: .... the Ministry of Defence has to plan now for certain aspects of the force structure beyond 2015. It can only plan on what it knows, so at the moment it is planning on the basis of a flat real budget from 2015 onwards. At the moment, the Ministry of Defence is planning not to achieve Future Force 2020... "Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup: You cannot plan for 2016-17 in 2015. Certain things have longer lead times than that. "Q289 Chair: So because the Treasury insists on spending being on the basis of flat budgets, rather than projected growth, it is not policy. "Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup: The Treasury tells the MOD that it can plan on what it likes, but that it cannot count on the Treasury providing any more money than it is getting at the moment..."
1 reply
UK's MoD is currently planning to NOT re-generate the armed services' capabilities lost* due to last autumn's SDSR-mandated cuts after 2015 because the Treasury has currently committed to provide only flat-growth budgets to the MoD 2015-2021: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9487000/9487619.stm - 32:48 - 34:50 ; and UK's MoD has NO PLANS for regenerating airborne maritime patrol 'wide area surveillance' Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capabilities due to Nimrod's scrapping- EVEN IF NEW FUNDING WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS AFTER 2015!!!- 46:40- 47:30 ... Mr. Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada * such as aircraft carrier operations....
1 reply
As chair of the Commons' defence committee Mr. Arbuthnot ought to be ensuring or at least attempting to ensure that his committee performs a scrutinizing oversight role over the current, highly troubled 'big deck' aircraft carrier and deeply problemmed Type-45 Destroyer projects- with progress reports on these 2 projects from the committee submitted to the Commons on at least a quarterly basis.... CONSTRUCTION OF UK's PLANNED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OUGHT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCELERATED... WITH BOTH VESSELS FULLY-COMPLETED- AND EQUIPPED WITH CAPABLE, NOT 'CUT RATE'- SENSORS, COMMUNICATIONS, WEAPONS & DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS- BY 2015- 2016 INSTEAD OF 2021- 2022 The excessive govt policy vagueness*, indecision, LACK OF AMBITION and overall negativity that has pervaded the UK's aircraft carrier project for over 8-years- and has substantially worsened since the UK's 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)- can only have severely negatively impacted levels of confidence in and perceptions of the UK by the country's closest allies and international partners; the defence industry community; overseas corporations that potentially could purchase UK products/services and/or invest in the UK in the future... .... If the UK's currently undergoing re-design** and construction planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers are not built to impress potential purchasers and instill fear in and deter potential adversaries.... and if the 'big deck' carrier programme continues to be run in a 'as cheap and not-comprehensive as possible', chaotic fashion- with minimal-military-capabilities as objectives- the country will have severely damaged its world standing and defence industries' reputations permanently or at the least- for decades to come!!! Similarly, if the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers end up as multi billion pound, impotent duds- as has been the direction for over 8-years- the UK also will put into question its appropriateness for retaining its long standing top-table positions on the world's most powerful and influential political, legal, economic, financial, human rights and military bodies... Although the previous labour govt handed the current govt an incredibly badly botched 'big deck' aircraft carrier project when they took office, the short and long term costs as well as the broad and diverse negative ramifications to the country should the current govt fail at- at least substantially- rectifying the projects' immense, egregiously dangerous design and planning errors**- are incalculable... Completing the building of these intrinsic-to-national-image warships with confidence, quality and aplomb so that both the build-processes and the resulting products' capabilities impress the rest of the world is vital to the UK avoiding the looming international ridicule- if these vessels end up as multi-billion pound, functionally-incapable duds- constructed while the rest of the Royal Navy was eviscerated and rendered little more than a glorified 'ferry service'... Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada * in terms of the project's outcome, carriers' capabilities and, specifically- how many and what TYPES of aircraft will be deployed from each carrier... ** re-design that is badly needed to fix the previous Labour govt's egregiously dangerous aircraft carrier design errors.... errors that were plainly driven by Labour's 'jobs for votes' priorities rather than making the main objective of the carrier project building capable warships...
1 reply
As chair of the Commons' defence committee Mr. Arbuthnot ought to be ensuring or at least attempting to ensure that his committee performs a scrutinizing oversight role over the current, highly troubled 'big deck' aircraft carrier and deeply problemmed Type-45 Destroyer projects- with progress reports on these 2 projects from the committee submitted to the Commons on at least a quarterly basis.... PART 2: Although the previous labour govt handed the current govt an incredibly badly botched 'big deck' aircraft carrier project when they took office, the short and long term costs as well as the broad and diverse negative ramifications to the country should the current govt fail at- at least substantially- rectifying the projects' immense, egregiously dangerous design and planning errors**- are incalculable... Completing the building of these intrinsic-to-national-image warships with confidence, quality and aplomb so that both the build-processes and the resulting products' capabilities impress the rest of the world is vital to the UK avoiding the looming international ridicule- if these vessels end up as multi-billion pound, functionally-incapable duds- constructed while the rest of the Royal Navy was eviscerated and rendered little more than a glorified 'ferry service'... Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada * in terms of the project's outcome, carriers' capabilities and, specifically- how many and what TYPES of aircraft will be deployed from each carrier... ** re-design that is badly needed to fix the previous Labour govt's egregiously dangerous aircraft carrier design errors.... errors that were plainly driven by Labour's 'jobs for votes' priorities rather than making the main objective of the carrier project building capable warships...
1 reply
AN 'INDEPENDENT' SCOTLAND WOULD BE ENTITLED TO NO MORE THAN A POPULATION-BASED PORTION OF THE UK's OIL & GAS RESOURCES* THAT EXIST FARTHER THAN 20-MILES FROM SCOTLAND's SHORES!! *about 8% of total oil and gas value based upon Scotland's 5M population as approximately 8% of the United Kingdom's 61M... When Scotland entered the Union it had no offshore oil resources. Once entered into the Union, Scotland ceased being a 'nation-state' entity and became a component of a much bigger nation-state: the United Kingdom. International laws, conventions and practises existing at the time of Scotland's entry into the Union provided countries with shorelines rights to the resources off of their shores at distances of only 20-miles from their shores.... not the 200 miles+ that today's international laws provide for. The nation-state that is the United Kingdom became the beneficiary of international laws that substantially increased countries' offshore legal jurisdictions while expanding the exclusive rights countries' have to off-shore undersea resources: IE: expanding nations' offshore legal and exclusive resource-rights jurisdictions from 20-miles out to- in many cases- in excess of 200 miles from their shores- when these new laws were enacted/adopted last century... At the time that laws expanding nations' ownership of off-shore undersea resources were enacted/adopted last century, Scotland was not a functional 'nation-state', but rather was a component of a larger nation-state: the United Kingdom... and as a consequence Scotland did not become- and is not today- the rightful 'owner' of undersea resources such as oil and natural gas that happen to be found farther than 20 miles from its shores!! Should Scotland or any other component of the United Kingdom decide for whatever reason to declare unilateral independence in the future, any off-shore resources (and/or profits from such) existing more than 20-miles from its shores would- if international laws were to be adhered to- have to be divided up between the other parts of the United Kingdom... ______________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
PART 2: RE APRIL 06-2011 DIALY POLITICS SHOW AND POSSIBLY RE-OPENING THE UK's STRATEGIC DEFENCE & SECURITY REVIEW (SDSR): DEFENCE MINISTER HARVEY WAS A BLACK HOLE OF INSPIRATION !!!!! On a directly related matter, the US's current budget projections for 2011-2012 call for scaling back previous commitments for production of the (US/UK project) Short Take-off & Vertical Land (STOVL) F-35B STEALTH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPPED fighter/bomber/interceptor from 27 to just 9 copies (13 during 2011 reduced to just 3 and the 14 planned for 2012 dropped to only 6...) What would be lost by the UK getting itself 'first in line' for early-production F-35B fighter/bombers'- even if this meant increasing the numbers of F-35Bs that are planned to be produced over the next several years, and hopefully, assembling/manufacturing these in the UK?? The STEALTH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPPED F-35B fighter/bomber/interceptor is designed as a 'Harrier replacement' for deployment on the US's existing CVLs/LHDs as well as on successor class CVLs/LHDs... Provided that sufficient funding could be found: what would make a better 'public relations and UK security profile backdrop' during 2012: a clapped out, obsolescent, virtually defenceless 3-decade old Invincible class carrier (without any fixed-wing aircraft!) or a newly commissioned-into-the-RN close to brand-new LHD/CVL equipped with as much UK defensive, sensors, communications and related equipment as possible including the world's most advanced, capable and versatile naval fighter/bomber/interceptor- the UK/US STEALTH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPPED F-35B fighter//bomber/interceptor?? What would be better able to provide the UK & its interests with protection- in addition to projecting an impressive 'public relations' backdrop- during 2012 and up to 2021: a defective French carrier that regularly breaks down & is often going to be being tasked for France's own uses 2011-2021 or a couple of the US's proven, capable, highly versatile & heavily armed 'CVL/LHD 'medium sized' aircraft carriers- hopefully commissioned into the RN?? - USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (recently commissioned); - USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; http://acquisition.navy.mil/programs/ships/lha_6 In every press briefing regarding the Libya operations given by US Defense officials and military personnel where allied forces' naval and/or airpower assets are referenced, France's and Italy's 2 aircraft carriers that are positioned in the Mediterranean off Libya's coasts are referenced with laudatory comments.... During these same briefings the country whose navy for centuries was the world's biggest, most capable and advanced and 'ruled the waves'- receives almost no mention of its naval assets positioned in the Mediterranean and what capabilities they are contributing to operations: http://www.c-span.org type in search box: "defense department briefing"; "house armed services committee"; "senate armed services committee"; libya; Perhaps if the above proposals were taken up by the UK, the UK's friends across the pond on this side of the Atlantic would have less of motivation to write scathing stories about the Royal Navy such as this: "Is This the End of the Royal Navy?", 22_10-2010: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/22/opinion/main6980518.shtml __________________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
PART 1: RE APRIL 06-2011 DAILY POLITICS SHOW AND POSSIBLY RE-OPENING THE UK's STRATEGIC DEFENCE & SECURITY REVIEW (SDSR): DEFENCE MINISTER HARVEY WAS A BLACK HOLE OF INSPIRATION !!!!! Should the UK's 2010 SDSR be revamped to reflect the recent developments in the middle east and to factor in current & potential future obligations upon the UK to intervene in the middle east or elsewhere world wide should other countries' populations agitate for democracy and human rights-based rule-of-law?? Absolutely... so long as a revamped SDSR is predicated upon the UK's armed forces having at least some capabilities to take on meaningful military & logistical obligations and actions world wide WITHOUT having to rely on other EU member nations... ---------- A quick-fix to the RN's aircraft carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing' or gifting to the UK 2 (or 3) of their recently commissioned "medium sized aircraft carriers" (CVLs/ LHDs) along with their armaments, Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc. (it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support): - USS Makin Island (LHD 8), commissioned 2009;: http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/ http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/ - USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 The LHD USS Kearsarge has provided the United States with substantial, versatile airpower-from-the-sea during the recent Libya operations. Aircraft from the Kearsarge have competently provided air interdiction, ground attack and close air support for allied forces' operations over the last weeks: http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/26thMarineExpeditionaryunitjoinsOdysseyDawn.aspx Underlying the effectiveness of 'medium sized aircraft carriers' (LHDs/LHAs) effectiveness in overseas' military and disaster relief operations, another, newer LHD- the USS Bataan- is on its way to Libya: "Bataan ARG heads to Libya duty in Med", 23_03-2011: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-libya-bataan-arg-deploys-early-032311w/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bataan_(LHD-5) These highly versatile medium sized aircraft carriers: - weigh-in at approximately double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class aircraft carriers; - deploy the same types of Short Take-off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft as recently de-activated RN carriers, but have more than 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity; - have far more versatile capabilities, including Flag ship & Task Force Command & Control; & - are out fitted with very recent technology, high-capability radars & anti-missile/anti-submarine warfare systems... ... U.S. CVLs/LHD's would be highly appropriate for deployment by the UK to the coast of Libya/Mediterranean & Persian Gulf instead of- or accompanying- the highly vulnerable-to-21st-century-anti-ship-weapons Type-22 Frigate and Type-42 Destroyer recently sent there but reportedly unable to approach the shore of Libya due to 'dangers' until only recently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1360075/Libya-protests-William-Hagues-Gaddafi-flees-Tripoli-blunder-fails-government.html The lend/lease of the above LHDs to the RN hopefully would prompt the UK govt to approve funding for the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Multi-mission Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990's, IE: an additional 6 Type-45s over and above the 6 egregiously stripped-down versions currently being constructed/commissioned for/into the RN... --------------------- CONTINUED
1 reply
PART 1: RE APRIL 06-2011 DIALY POLITICS SHOW AND POSSIBLY RE-OPENING THE UK's STRATEGIC DEFENCE & SECURITY REVIEW (SDSR): DEFENCE MINISTER HARVEY WAS A BLACK HOLE OF INSPIRATION !!!!! Should the UK's 2010 SDSR be revamped to reflect the recent developments in the middle east and to factor in current & potential future obligations upon the UK to intervene in the middle east or elsewhere world wide should other countries' populations agitate for democracy and human rights-based rule-of-law?? Absolutely... so long as a revamped SDSR is predicated upon the UK's armed forces having at least some capabilities to take on meaningful military & logistical obligations and actions world wide WITHOUT having to rely on other EU member nations... ---------- A quick-fix to the RN's aircraft carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing' or gifting to the UK 2 (or 3) of their recently commissioned "medium sized aircraft carriers" (CVLs/ LHDs) along with their armaments, Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc. (it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support): - USS Makin Island (LHD 8), commissioned 2009;: http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/ http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/ - USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 The LHD USS Kearsarge has provided the United States with substantial, versatile airpower-from-the-sea during the recent Libya operations. Aircraft from the Kearsarge have competently provided air interdiction, ground attack and close air support for allied forces' operations over the last weeks: http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/26thMarineExpeditionaryunitjoinsOdysseyDawn.aspx Underlying the effectiveness of 'medium sized aircraft carriers' (LHDs/LHAs) effectiveness in overseas' military and disaster relief operations, another, newer LHD- the USS Bataan- is on its way to Libya: "Bataan ARG heads to Libya duty in Med", 23_03-2011: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-libya-bataan-arg-deploys-early-032311w/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bataan_(LHD-5) These highly versatile medium sized aircraft carriers: - weigh-in at approximately double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class aircraft carriers; - deploy the same types of Short Take-off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft as recently de-activated RN carriers, but have more than 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity; - have far more versatile capabilities, including Flag ship & Task Force Command & Control; & - are out fitted with very recent technology, high-capability radars & anti-missile/anti-submarine warfare systems... ... U.S. CVLs/LHD's would be highly appropriate for deployment by the UK to the coast of Libya/Mediterranean & Persian Gulf instead of- or accompanying- the highly vulnerable-to-21st-century-anti-ship-weapons Type-22 Frigate and Type-42 Destroyer recently sent there but reportedly unable to approach the shore of Libya due to 'dangers' until only recently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1360075/Libya-protests-William-Hagues-Gaddafi-flees-Tripoli-blunder-fails-government.html The lend/lease of the above LHDs to the RN hopefully would prompt the UK govt to approve funding for the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Multi-mission Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990's, IE: an additional 6 Type-45s over and above the 6 egregiously stripped-down versions currently being constructed/commissioned for/into the RN... CONTINUED
1 reply
PART 2: RE APRIL 06-2011 SHOW AND POSSIBLY RE-OPENING THE UK's STRATEGIC DEFENCE & SECURITY REVIEW (SDSR): DEFENCE MINISTER HARVEY WAS A BLACK HOLE OF INSPIRATION !!!!! On a directly related matter, the US's current budget projections for 2011-2012 call for scaling back previous commitments for production of the (US/UK project) Short Take-off & Vertical Land (STOVL) F-35B STEALTH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPPED fighter/bomber/interceptor from 27 to just 9 copies (13 during 2011 reduced to just 3 and the 14 planned for 2012 dropped to only 6...) What would be lost by the UK getting itself 'first in line' for early-production F-35B fighter/bombers'- even if this meant increasing the numbers of F-35Bs that are planned to be produced over the next several years, and hopefully, assembling/manufacturing these in the UK?? The STEALTH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPPED F-35B fighter/bomber/interceptor is designed as a 'Harrier replacement' for deployment on the US's existing CVLs/LHDs as well as on successor class CVLs/LHDs... Provided that sufficient funding could be found: what would make a better 'public relations and UK security profile backdrop' during 2012: a clapped out, obsolescent, virtually defenceless 3-decade old Invincible class carrier (without any fixed-wing aircraft!) or a newly commissioned-into-the-RN close to brand-new LHD/CVL equipped with as much UK defensive, sensors, communications and related equipment as possible including the world's most advanced, capable and versatile naval fighter/bomber/interceptor- the UK/US STEALTH TECHNOLOGY EQUIPPED F-35B fighter//bomber/interceptor?? What would be better able to provide the UK & its interests with protection- in addition to projecting an impressive 'public relations' backdrop- during 2012 and up to 2021: a defective French carrier that regularly breaks down & is often going to be being tasked for France's own uses 2011-2021 or a couple of the US's proven, capable, highly versatile & heavily armed 'CVL/LHD 'medium sized' aircraft carriers- hopefully commissioned into the RN?? - USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (recently commissioned); - USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; http://acquisition.navy.mil/programs/ships/lha_6 In every press briefing regarding the Libya operations given by US Defense officials and military personnel where allied forces' naval and/or airpower assets are referenced, France's and Italy's 2 aircraft carriers that are positioned in the Mediterranean off Libya's coasts are referenced with laudatory comments.... During these same briefings the country whose navy for centuries was the world's biggest, most capable and advanced and 'ruled the waves'- receives almost no mention of its naval assets positioned in the Mediterranean and what capabilities they are contributing to operations: http://www.c-span.org type in search box: "defense department briefing"; "house armed services committee"; "senate armed services committee"; libya; Perhaps if the above proposals were taken up by the UK, the UK's friends across the pond on this side of the Atlantic would have less of motivation to write scathing stories about the Royal Navy such as this: "Is This the End of the Royal Navy?", 22_10-2010: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/22/opinion/main6980518.shtml __________________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
PART 1: RE APRIL 06-2011 DAILY POLITICS SHOW AND POSSIBLY RE-OPENING THE UK's STRATEGIC DEFENCE & SECURITY REVIEW (SDSR): DEFENCE MINISTER HARVEY WAS A BLACK HOLE OF INSPIRATION !!!!! Should the UK's 2010 SDSR be revamped to reflect the recent developments in the middle east and to factor in current & potential future obligations upon the UK to intervene in the middle east or elsewhere world wide should other countries' populations agitate for democracy and human rights-based rule-of-law?? Absolutely... so long as a revamped SDSR is predicated upon the UK's armed forces having at least some capabilities to take on meaningful military & logistical obligations and actions world wide WITHOUT having to rely on other EU member nations... ---------- A quick-fix to the RN's aircraft carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing' or gifting to the UK 2 (or 3) of their recently commissioned "medium sized aircraft carriers" (CVLs/ LHDs) along with their armaments, Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc. (it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support): - USS Makin Island (LHD 8), commissioned 2009;: http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/ http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/ - USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 The LHD USS Kearsarge has provided the United States with substantial, versatile airpower-from-the-sea during the recent Libya operations. Aircraft from the Kearsarge have competently provided air interdiction, ground attack and close air support for allied forces' operations over the last weeks: http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/26thMarineExpeditionaryunitjoinsOdysseyDawn.aspx Underlying the effectiveness of 'medium sized aircraft carriers' (LHDs/LHAs) effectiveness in overseas' military and disaster relief operations, another, newer LHD- the USS Bataan- is on its way to Libya: "Bataan ARG heads to Libya duty in Med", 23_03-2011: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-libya-bataan-arg-deploys-early-032311w/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bataan_(LHD-5) These highly versatile medium sized aircraft carriers: - weigh-in at approximately double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class aircraft carriers; - deploy the same types of Short Take-off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft as recently de-activated RN carriers, but have more than 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity; - have far more versatile capabilities, including Flag ship & Task Force Command & Control; & - are out fitted with very recent technology, high-capability radars & anti-missile/anti-submarine warfare systems... ... U.S. CVLs/LHD's would be highly appropriate for deployment by the UK to the coast of Libya/Mediterranean & Persian Gulf instead of- or accompanying- the highly vulnerable-to-21st-century-anti-ship-weapons Type-22 Frigate and Type-42 Destroyer recently sent there but reportedly unable to approach the shore of Libya due to 'dangers' until only recently: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1360075/Libya-protests-William-Hagues-Gaddafi-flees-Tripoli-blunder-fails-government.html The lend/lease of the above LHDs to the RN hopefully would prompt the UK govt to approve funding for the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Multi-mission Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990's, IE: an additional 6 Type-45s over and above the 6 egregiously stripped-down versions currently being constructed/commissioned for/into the RN... CONTINUED
1 reply
Peaceful protests and political activism are laudable, societally-constructive tactics and ought to always be the first strategy utilized by persons or groups of persons attempting to bring about positive change of political, legal or bureaucratic structures... But when 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons (in this case, Libya's 'freedom fighters') are responded to with brutal, unnecessary violence- if the protesters have success as their objective- violence must be met with types of tactics that can win: even if this means using military measures... When 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons- whose objectives are reasonable and constructive (in this case, Libya's brave, commendable freedom fighters)- are responded to with brutal, unconscionable violence, those that have the ability to intervene- and that are being asked to intervene by (in this case) Libya's freedom fighters- but choose to stand by and do nothing, invite Libya's abusive-to-human-rights despotic, dictatorship model of governance to be spread to- and become more firmly entrenched in other countries.... Surely, the rights and legal guarantees which we in the developed world take for granted such as: universal-suffrage democracy; human rights-based rule-of law; equal application of a country's laws to its residents/citizens regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and creed; freedoms of speech, thought, association, expression, peaceful assembly and belief.... ... are sufficiently worthy for NATO/western countries to fight for- or at least support the establishment of- in countries whose citizens are demanding such?? Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
Libya's commendable freedom fighters should not expect assistance from other middle eastern and North African countries!! NATO and EU member countries are setting up a self-defeating proposal if a condition for NATO/EU member countries' intervening militarily in Libya is participation in such an operation by Libya's region's other countries... Why?? Libya's freedom fighters unequivocally expressed objectives are to live under human rights-based, rule of law democratic governance rather than continuing to live under a despotic dictatorship... The region's countries with the biggest, best equipped militaries- such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt- have zero histories of functioning under human rights-based, rule of law democratic governance, and for decades have been dictatorships in which appalling human rights abuses were regular occurrences... Why would Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's rulers (IE King Faud and military) support people in other countries who are attempting to set up governance models that they have uncontradicted, appalling histories of opposing, and occasionally- violently oppressing?? Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply
Peaceful protests and political activism are laudable, societally-constructive tactics and ought to always be the first strategy utilized by persons or groups of persons attempting to bring about positive change of political, legal or bureaucratic structures... But when 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons (in this case, Libya's 'freedom fighters') are responded to with brutal, unnecessary violence- if the protesters have success as their objective- violence must be met with types of tactics that can win: even if this means using military measures... When 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons- whose objectives are reasonable and constructive (in this case, Libya's brave, commendable freedom fighters)- are responded to with brutal, unconscionable violence, those that have the ability to intervene- and that are being asked to intervene by (in this case) Libya's freedom fighters- but choose to stand by and do nothing, invite Libya's abusive-to-human-rights despotic, dictatorship model of governance to be spread to other countries.... Surely, the rights and legal guarantees which we in the developed world take for granted such as: universal-suffrage democracy; human rights-based rule-of law; equal application of a country's laws to its residents/citizens regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and creed; freedoms of speech, thought, association, expression, peaceful assembly and belief.... ... are sufficiently worthy for NATO/western countries to fight for- or at least support the establishment of- in countries whose citizens are demanding such?? ----------------------- UK FORCES OUT OF AFGHANISTAN- INTO LIBYA!! The UK could re-deploy its air and land-based military resources from Afghanistan to Libya- IE: from a country where there is very little expressed support for democracy and human rights-based rule-of-law to a country where the majority of its people are attempting to set up a universal-suffrage, democratic, human-rights-based rule-of-law state... Libya's 'second city', freedom fighter controlled Benghazi, needs to be fortified with competent, well trained professionals to bolster defences manned by the largely untrained, 'volunteer' freedom fighters... Farther west, Libya's freedom fighters need to retain foot-holds, to be kept in place until an offensive against the Gaddafi regime can be launched. France and the UK could productively deploy their land, sea and air assets to assist Libya's freedom fighters retaining and fortifying cities and ports such as Brega and Misrata... The negative consequences down the road for the comfortable west for not deploying air- and if required: land-based military assets in Libya threaten to be be many times worse than intervening... Waiting for the the UN Security Council to provide its endorsement of international/NATO intervention in Libya is in many ways like asking a business-license office in Zimbabwe to make a decision on issuing a business license based upon objectively-applied laws and policies: it doesn't happen! Considering the extreme urgency of the worsening Libya situation and the dire consequences for Libya's freedom fighters and the west of the US, UK, France and allies not intervening militarily... the U.N. and its dysfunctional processes ought to be ignored... Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada
1 reply