Good call, x. We really should have kept our mouths shut and remained neutral. I'd have no problem giving approval for other nations to go intervene if they really wanted to, but we should have stayed the hell out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Printable View
Good call, x. We really should have kept our mouths shut and remained neutral. I'd have no problem giving approval for other nations to go intervene if they really wanted to, but we should have stayed the hell out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Well, considering they rapidly seemed to be winning the war two weeks ago and took (and have held) the second largest city...it seems to me that it is only because of Gaddafi's spending spree for foreign mercs and equipment that he has been pushing them back. My point is that when it was army vs rebels rebels held their own. Now that its army, mercs, tanks, aircraft vs rebels, of course they are going to do badly. I don't mind evening the playing field a bit and actually seeing this civil war consist of Libyans vs Libyans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Libyan's should be fighting the Libyan government and the Libyan army for whatever causes they are fighting for, not hordes of european and south african mercs. If it was up to me, I would have told Saudi Arabia to get the **** out of Bahrain and let the gov/army of Bahrain handle its own citizens. I guess I misspoke when I said "fair". I just want self determination of a people to be determined by its actual people, not money. If the rebels are disorganized and fail hard, fine. If the only reason they lose is because we didn't stop the rich king pin from hiring armies from across the world to do his bidding for him, that's ******** imo.Quote:
what the hell is a fair chance in a war setting?....war is not a game of cricket...."fair" in war means you make the other guy die and your guys come back in one piece.
I get it, people are pissed we are getting involved in the middle east again. We are spending money on arabs again and we are committing soldiers to the middle east again. But like I said earlier, this is not Iraq or Afghanistan as long as we hold to the UN resolution and not send in ground troops. If the rebels fail, then that is it. And either they will fail within a month, or they will kill gaddafi by the end of april.
Actually, with the way the resolution is worded, if Gadaffi is smart he could retain control of much of the country, including the vital oil ports, while the West is left to perpetually insure the security of small enclaves around Benghazi and Misurata - much like the situation with the Kurds in Iraq, which lasted more than a decade and only stopped with the invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I don't even believe it authorizes direct attacks against Gadaffi or his command and control apparatus.
A few more lines and it's an essay! :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Gaddafi tanks supposedly inside Benghazi now. Where be the jets? Things are taking so long one could wonder whether or not they are serious about this whole thing.
It also looks like the US is going to be very reluctant about using any of their own firepower:
Quote:
President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.
"We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone," the president said in a nationally televised statement about U.S. military action.
"The president chose his words deliberately and carefully, and you should be guided by them," the official said. "He is very sensitive that this not be a U.S. operation. We are part of it. And of course, we by nature of our superior capabilities have a lead and leadership role to play. But we are part of it and expect a lot from our partners," the official said.
Asked about the "unique capabilities" the president talked about contributing, the official said that at least for now, they would not involve combat fighters or bombers but instead would include AWACS, intelligence-gathering drones and other intelligence assets, and refueling and air traffic control.
“I don't even believe it authorizes direct attacks against Gadaffi or his command and control apparatus.”
It depends how you read the small prints. There is something like “take all appropriate measures bla bla bla”.
Then, as shown in Kosovo, this is just the start. It will be up to the implementing Countries to decide what are these measures.
Remember that Kosovo was part of Serbia even in the cease-fire agreement…
First you’ve got the paper then you change the goal posts.
Well, in order to be able to implement a deny Fly zone, you have to secure the Air Space, so to destroy all possibilities for the side on which this Deny Zone is imposed to defend itself.
So you have to destroy, Radar Stations, AA weapons as ZSU Shilka, SAM and others command posts. And de facto, you can do this with ground troops, e.g. light commando heliported let’s say from Chad, or even ground raids as the French did when Libya was a problem in northern Chad. So, the ground intervention is still in the Deny Fly resolution.
Perhaps we can do it as well from Tunisia as the French have a military agreement with this country, depending on our good (or not so thanks to Sarkozy’s stupid foreign politic) relations with the new administration. I supposed that Tunisia would be happy to be free from this neighbour, especially as last time they try something, Gadaffi sent some mercenaries to help the now fallen dictator…
But then you have to stop them to rebuild. So well, you can keep the troops or give the position to the rebels (legitimate government for the French).
Again, look at Serbia. NATO legitimated the attack on the Serbian TV saying it was part of the Milosevic Propaganda Machine so part of the military Machine.
So, from pure military hardware, you can extend the concept to all what helps or supports or participates (even indirectly) to every thing you want.
looks like Gaddafi decided to go out Tony Montana style.
I'm not surprised to be honest... he has a massive ego.
Obama played his diplomatic cards very well. I still have not read the resolution but as far as I could grasp it, it gives the consent of the UN to legally interfere in Libya. It was very wise to exclude ground invasion (just look what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq now) and to attract Arabian allies in the game. Whilst the Gaddafi aviation is not such a big threat, the international aviation above the rebels is a serious blow for the land forces Gaddafi (I agree with Brenus here). It certainly could turn out to be decisive in the struggle between the rebels and Gaddafi. Of course, the land forces of the rebels should win their regime change. The population of Tripoli and other cities may wave the banner of the rebellion again as the grip of the Coloner weakens.
I have never been enthusiasthic about international campaigns in souvereign countries but I think Gaddafi went a bit too far so I can't say anything against this campaign. Let's hope it will be the lesser of the evils.
I envisage the international airforce being useful in stopping Gaddafi advancing, but I don't imagine the Rebels are going to manage to storm Tripoli either.
The stalemate could end with Gaddafi being overthrown or Lybia bieng divided into two countries. Either outcome is better than him being in control of it all.
~:smoking:
I know these things take time to implement but what are we doing? The military advantage we have over this joke army is absurd. I want to see jets over Benghazi reducing Gadaffi's rat army to dust, not more talks on a desired course of action..
What the United States is doing is appropriate here. We are not using strong language and we are remaining wishy-washy. Not as wishy-washy as the Germans, but wishy-washy enough to pressure other European powers to act. If we jump in head first, they will take that as a sign to sit back and relax, even though they know what needs to be done and are willing to do it. If the Americans lead the charge, they know that the neccessary action will be taken and they can save their own money. At this point, because of the administrations incorrectly percieved impotence; the UK, France, the Netherlands, Norway, etc are getting off of their asses as sending support. If we do the bulk of the activity in Afghanistan, you will do the bulk of the activity in Libya.
Use this as an opportunity to ween yourselves off of the American Defense tit.
It appears that the defence of Benghazi is going well, picture below showing captured loyalist tank paraded in the city (Reuters)
https://img851.imageshack.us/img851/156/64793487.jpg
Meanwhile, the first CotW (reinventing the term) bombs may be dropped over Libya in a few hours; though previous "promises" have proven not to be trustable.
French airplanes are already flying over Benghazi/Libya it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971
There are more than enough fighters committed to the enforcement of 1973 without counting the United States. I think that, since the European powers have shown such resolve, we should provide all the neccessary logistical support with only a minimal contribution of force.
BTW - Sweden is seriously considering providing military assistance. I'm not sure how Germany can sit there and say it has no intention of or interest in providing assistance. This is kind of irritating. They maintain that they are not neutral and support the resolution (even though they abstained from the votie), but refuse to kick in to provide for European security. How can they possibly be considered part of European Leadership when they skirt even UN responsibility? I hope all that fence straddling begins to chaffe.
Awesome picture of Mig 23 (?) going down.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpg
Not so awesome considering that it was a rebel jet. The rebels claim that it was shot down by loyalist forces, though it may well have been shot down by their own guns given the disorganised state the rebel "army" is in.
In other news; Reuters report that French figher jets have opened fire and destroyed their first target; and that they fired their first shots on a loyalist military vehicle.
Does anyone know gini index for Libya?
I've not seen that particular claim. However the disorganised state of the rebels is worrying. Without some kind of strong, centralised and militarily competent (or at least, more competent than the loyalists) I don't see how they can "liberate" the whole country. Of course having such a leaderships is probably the best way to ensure that a authoritarian leader backed by military power supplants the current authoritarian leader backed by military power. I'm in the dark since there doesn't seem to be much info in the media about the rebel leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I have also read the rebels were able to "acquire" one mig-23 and 2 attack helicopters from Gaddafi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Well, no. At least wikipedia's map from the CIA 2009 world factbook paints Libya as “no data available” (grey).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
A jet crashing in a populated area?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I am unsure "awesome" is the right word here. I hope no civilians got killed.
All you couscous-eating Gaddafi-lovers are far too cynical for me.
Civilians are being crushed by a tyrant, so my default position is that you fight, barring compelling reasons not to. Some tyrant somewhere is going to hear the Marseillaise together with bombs flying in his direction, so I'm happy.
https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/25...lagwomangi.gif
Kudos to both France and the UK for the efforts they have undertaken to get this through. I am happy that the Norwegian Air Force is going to participate with F-16 fighter jets. We have now quite literally experienced the take-off, let's how hope that we can manage a good landing as well..
The latest developments now is that the US has launched Tomahawk missiles on targets outside Tripoli and Misurata. More airstrikes are also expected to follow - things are building up.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The sins of omission that we are willing to commit in the name of "stability" turns my stomach. Of course, I am cynical too...the only reason there is action being taken here is because Libya is a very short distance from France & Italy and the fact that there is oil there. Otherwise, we would be talking about Yemen, Bahrain, and a dozen African countries as well.
My fear was that any action would be too little too late. The unneccessary loss of life due to the delays in the UN acting on the requests of the UK & France is quite tragic. At this point, foreign forces will have to take some sort of decisive action to turn the tide and to reinvigorate rebels in cities already lost (assuming Quaddaffi loyalists did not already round them all up).
Wow, people actually think that France and UK and whoever is in line are doing the right thing.
Why don't you tell us whose side you're on and how you want them to win?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
I'm all for West/UN/WhatevarCoalitionMadeUpAsAMeansOfTheBenefitsOfG8 getting out, leaving them be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Even if it means tyranny will rule the day?
I need to read up on the isolationist arguments of the early 20th century before I can say whether I agree with Lefteyenine or not.
Sure. If that's to happen, let it be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Why don't you believe in people's own transformation/evolving/demand ?
The whole despot grounds are shaking. If it doesn't happen today, it will one day for the "fault line" has already broke out.