• UK agrees logistical support for Mali operation
    12 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20999533[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]The UK has agreed to help transport foreign troops and equipment to Mali amid French efforts to contain rebels.[/B] In recent days France has attacked militants in Mali to support the Malian government, and has attempted to rescue a French hostage in Somalia. Downing Street stressed no UK troops would be deployed in a combat role. The move was agreed in a phone call between Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande, Downing Street said. [B]'International security'[/B] "The prime minister spoke to President Hollande this evening to discuss the deteriorating situation in Mali and how the UK can support French military assistance provided to the Malian government to contain rebel and extremist groups in the north of the country," a spokeswoman said. "The prime minister has agreed that the UK will provide logistical military assistance to help transport foreign troops and equipment quickly to Mali. "We will not be deploying any British personnel in a combat role. They also agreed that the peacekeeping mission from West African countries needs to be strongly supported by countries in the region and deployed as quickly as possible. "Both leaders agreed that the situation in Mali poses a real threat to international security given terrorist activity there." The government's National Security Council (NSC) will discuss the situation in Mali when it meets on Tuesday. [B]Hostage attempt[/B] Meanwhile, President Hollande has ordered security is stepped up around French public buildings and transport following the operations in Mali and Somalia. French troops were deployed in Mali on Friday after its army lost control of a strategically-important town to Islamists who were advancing south. The rebels took control of a huge swathe of northern Mali last April. The central town of Konna has since been recaptured, the Malian government says. Then, French commandos went into action in Somalia, swooping on the town of Bulo Marer in an attempt to free Denis Allex, who was kidnapped in July 2009. A battle erupted with al-Shabab militants and, according to President Hollande, the operation failed "despite the sacrifice of two of our soldiers and probably the assassination of our hostage".[/quote]
"despite the sacrifice of two of our soldiers and probably the assassination of our hostage" aw. fuck
If I were the leaders in the leadership of the UK military, I would not be worried about Mali, or Afghanistan for that matter. I would be diverting assets to the Falklands just as a precaution.
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39198530]If I were the leaders in the leadership of the UK military, I would not be worried about Mali, or Afghanistan for that matter. I would be diverting assets to the Falklands just as a precaution.[/QUOTE] Lo no. They won't do anything. Soon as any leader is unpopular they play the Falklands card.
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39198530]If I were the leaders in the leadership of the UK military, I would not be worried about Mali, or Afghanistan for that matter. I would be diverting assets to the Falklands just as a precaution.[/QUOTE] Argentina isn't going to invade the Falklands. Unless they raised their military budget sharply and bought the latest in weaponry and anti-ship/carrier missiles I can't see it happening because they would loose.
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39198530]If I were the leaders in the leadership of the UK military, I would not be worried about Mali, or Afghanistan for that matter. I would be diverting assets to the Falklands just as a precaution.[/QUOTE] What laserguided said. Also, North Africa seems to look like an Anglo-French (or European?) responsibility within the Atlantic Alliance now, whether they like it or not.
[QUOTE=redhaven;39198762]What laserguided said. Also, North Africa seems to look like an Anglo-French (or European?) responsibility within the Atlantic Alliance now, whether they like it or not.[/QUOTE] Africa will turn into a quagmire on an Iraqi scale if they get too entrenched. I'd rather see the squaddies on British soil protecting British subjects than lose them fighting in former imperial holdings for an undefined goal. An Army Engineer was killed today in a green-on-blue incident today, which to me is lower than an I.E.D. or insurgent fighting. Even if Argentina is blowing smoke, show them that threats will not be tolerated. If Cuba started eying Puerto Rico, I'd expect the US to show our teeth too.
Actually, moving troops TO the Falklands would provoke the Argentinians. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] Even with the fact that moving troops to a poor infrastructure, having them dig in basically says to South America "HONK WE HATE DIPLOMACY"
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39199444]Africa will turn into a quagmire on an Iraqi scale if they get too entrenched. I'd rather see the squaddies on British soil protecting British subjects than lose them fighting in former imperial holdings for an undefined goal. An Army Engineer was killed today in a green-on-blue incident today, which to me is lower than an I.E.D. or insurgent fighting. Even if Argentina is blowing smoke, show them that threats will not be tolerated. If Cuba started eying Puerto Rico, I'd expect the US to show our teeth too.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but did you just say that a continent will turn into an issue of a national scale? Even ignoring that this is just involving Mali at the moment (notably NOT a part of the former British Empire), the comparison of the two is just incorrect.
True, Mali is a former French holding, and France is committing more to the fight, so why the RAF needs to get involved? My quagmire comment was very general, I apologize. Between this and the thread about the US wanting to be in 35 African nations, on top of everything else going on, has me wary of starting something else
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39199481]Actually, moving troops TO the Falklands would provoke the Argentinians. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] Even with the fact that moving troops to a poor infrastructure, having them dig in basically says to South America "HONK WE HATE DIPLOMACY"[/QUOTE] We already are moving additional troops to the falklands
As long as we don't deploy troops there.
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39200015]True, Mali is a former French holding, and France is committing more to the fight, so why the RAF needs to get involved? My quagmire comment was very general, I apologize. Between this and the thread about the US wanting to be in 35 African nations, on top of everything else going on, has me wary of starting something else[/QUOTE] Because the UK is in the Atlantic Alliance? And sending a bunch of RAF jets isn't going to weaken the rest. The intervention in Libya didn't gave the Argentinians the opportunity to get Falklands. [QUOTE]Africa will turn into a quagmire on an Iraqi scale if they get too entrenched.[/QUOTE] Awful comparison. We are not invading Mali. UK will only take a support role, if you actually bothered to read the article.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.