It is getting worse in Lybia, Chavez supports Gadhafi

BBC reporting 112 cruise missiles fired at Libya, bombing raids by French, British and American jets.
64 people already dead as a result.
 
I don't get the US involvement here either. At least Obama bombs bring Hope and Change to those killed :roll: I can't wait for Michael Moore to put out a new film on how evil Obama is. Code Pink and MSNBC better show their outrage pretty fast.
 
redrumloa said:
I can't wait for Michael Moore to put out a new film on how evil Obama is.
Click to expand...

Well, you might be interested to know that criticism of the war on Libya (and Obama) is the cover story on michaelmoore.com right now...
 
Robert said:
BBC reporting 112 cruise missiles fired at Libya, bombing raids by French, British and American jets.
64 people already dead as a result.
Click to expand...

I can add some other sources for that.
Bombs in Tripoli - 64 dead

Also here we see destroyed tanks which is clearly beyond the needs of a no-fly zone.

Although the no-fly zone was supported by Arab nations - and would not have won United nations backing with them - the head of the Arab League criticized the international coalition's strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.

Amr Moussa said the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed. He told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians."
Click to expand...

Tripoli supports Gadhafi because Tripoli is the home of his tribe. Bengazhi is the home of the old ruling tribe. That's the split that has been exploited here. Should Libya be partitioned in the end? Or will th "international community" create a new "democratic" government for them?
 
Don't forget, the resolution passed on the 18th. Attacks against Libyan forces happened within 48 hrs. Everyone already had the assets and planning in place to proceed before the UN resolution was passed. For all the "foot dragging" that Obama can be accused of, the administration started preparing for this attack quite a while ago - likely before the fall of Mubarak.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Don't forget, the resolution passed on the 18th. Attacks against Libyan forces happened within 48 hrs. Everyone already had the assets and planning in place to proceed before the UN resolution was passed. For all the "foot dragging" that Obama can be accused of, the administration started preparing for this attack quite a while ago - likely before the fall of Mubarak.
Click to expand...
That's hard to say. For starters, most of these planes are based out of European bases, which in the case for France is about an hour's flight. In other words, there was no special logistical preparations required for air strikes as their assets were always within striking range. The French Navy set sail sometime time today and they're not expected to arrive off the coast of Libya until Monday. The Brits obviously had their navy in position for some time, and that's no surprise as we already saw the SAS operating inside Libya. Their aircraft however are taking off from Norfolk, England. They are refueling them midway on their 5000km flight. The US has no carriers in the Mediterranean. The USS Enterprise, part of the 6th fleet which is normally patrolling the Mediterranean (HQ in Naples, Italy), has been steaming Eastwards towards the Arabian sea. The US has been using submarines and and surface ships to launch cruise missiles. The US also stations F16s in Southern Italy, which have been used for the current attacks against Libya. So looking at the assets used against Libya it doesn't seem like any real advance planing was needed.

Factbox - Military assets in play in Libya crisis
 
Glaucus said:
The US has been using submarines and and surface ships to launch cruise missiles. The US also stations F16s in Southern Italy, which have been used for the current attacks against Libya. So looking at the assets used against Libya it doesn't seem like any real advance planing was needed.

Factbox - Military assets in play in Libya crisis
Click to expand...

Guess it makes sense to use the assets that are already in place (especially when they are other people's assets. It's still a multi-military operation - there is a lot to co-ordinate. Did they put the plan in place after the resolution or they had it ready to go "just in case"? It doesn't seem that anyone's military was caught short by this decision, 'cept maybe Moamar's.
 
There's a clip in here between 1:30 and 2:30 where the guest talks about lessons learned from Kosovo - in particular, the lesson to not let cease-fire monitors monitor cease-fires because they can tell you who is breaking the cease-fire.

[youtube:24gp7dmg]YgnJ28YeTKU[/youtube:24gp7dmg]
 
Putin brings gasoline. Uses the "C" word.

[youtube:3inx0kp9]DKIb5V9ZXLo[/youtube:3inx0kp9]
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
There's a clip in here between 1:30 and 2:30 where the guest talks about lessons learned from Kosovo - in particular, the lesson to not let cease-fire monitors monitor cease-fires because they can tell you who is breaking the cease-fire.

[youtube:27d36b23]YgnJ28YeTKU[/youtube:27d36b23]
Click to expand...

Interesting clip. Made some excellent points.

Thanks for the link.

:pint:
 
Yes, both Putin and that Balkans expert made some excellent points, but biased in both cases I must say. Putin should be the last to talk as last I checked Russian soldiers are still in Chechnya and parts of Georgia (which btw, was an intervention that not only involved air strikes, but a full invasion). His use of the "C" word is nothing more then an attempt to rally support from the Middle East/North African region. In the video Putin explained that he did not vote for the resolution, but a good reporter should have asked him why he did not veto it if he felt it was such a nasty idea. Of coarse a smart reporter knows that being a good reporter will quickly make you a former reporter when interviewing a guy like Putin.

Of course I still think what's going on in Libya is a bad idea and contrary to what Fluffy has stated, I get the sense that it's all very much rushed and last minute. I also get the sense that the key motivator for this entire intervention may actually not be the US but the UK and possibly France for some reason (and to support that argument I point to the fact that the US carrier that normally patrols those waters is far away somewhere else, yet it if the decision was made back in the days of the Egyptian revolts there would have been time for it to be back in place). It almost seems like the US went along just so they can maintain some level of control, but those pushing for it are those who seem to be committing to the cause the most: UK & France.

I also don't buy the recent statements from the head of the Arab League about their surprise with the current air strikes in Libya. Does anyone believe they didn't expect strikes on at least SOME ground targets? Well, if there is any doubt, let me show you a video where Robert Gates spells it all out quite nicely as to what a no-ly zone means, well before the resolution was passed:

[youtube:20n6od6z]1Y3f3e2ieqU[/youtube:20n6od6z]
 
redrumloa said:
I don't get the US involvement here either. At least Obama bombs bring Hope and Change to those killed :roll:.
Click to expand...

Muammar%2BThan%2BHe%2BBargained%2BFor.jpg
 
Glaucus wondered:
"I also get the sense that the key motivator for this entire intervention may actually not be the US but the UK and possibly France for some reason"
---------------------------------------

Could it be because, instead of most Libyan oil going to Europe, it is now going to China, India, and Australia?
 
Glaucus said:
His use of the "C" word is nothing more then an attempt to rally support from the Middle East/North African region.
Click to expand...
Rally support? I thought more like - incite attacks against US/UK/France. I don't think Putin minds the US throwing resources at a quagmire. By remaining neutral they can still do business with whoever wins.

(and to support that argument I point to the fact that the US carrier that normally patrols those waters is far away somewhere else, yet it if the decision was made back in the days of the Egyptian revolts there would have been time for it to be back in place).
Click to expand...

Not sure which carrier that is. The two that are reportedly in that part of the world are the Enterprise in the Red Sea and the C Vinson which is currently keeping an eye on Iran.

It almost seems like the US went along just so they can maintain some level of control, but those pushing for it are those who seem to be committing to the cause the most: UK & France.
Click to expand...

As Hillary said:
America has unique capabilities and we will bring them to bear...
Click to expand...

[youtube:3id3g2bp]f65q8bT5FY8[/youtube:3id3g2bp]

That would be a lot of Tomahawks for a start or in dollars, $120 million - a fair chunk of kit to have just laying around nearby. The US is more than just tagging along.
Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, described the U.S. role to reporters at the Pentagon: “We are on the leading edge of a coalition military operation.”
Click to expand...

By the way, take a look at this very interesting map.
 
The US lost a f-15 over night ($29 million). Rescue team shot at the locals who had come out to thank the pilot (also has nice graphic at end re: air assets)

Gadhafi is a target but the mission is humanitarian and regime change is not the purpose but removal of Gadhafi is US policy. Clear?

(yeah, I know, it's kind of buried in that link but there's a lot going on :) )

News organizations are bickering.

There is still the little question of how all this stuff is going to get paid for in a time of belt tightening budgets.
 
Glaucus said:
Yes, both Putin and that Balkans expert made some excellent points, but biased in both cases I must say.
Click to expand...

Isn't everyone? :-)

I also get the sense that the key motivator for this entire intervention may actually not be the US but the UK and possibly France
Click to expand...

You honestly think even both the UK and France together have that much influence?
Both were itching to get in there, of that there is no doubt, but there is absolutely no way the bombing would have started without US involvement.

Having said that, I completely agree that the UK government were rattling their collective sabre louder than anyone else.

It almost seems like the US went along just so they can maintain some level of control, but those pushing for it are those who seem to be committing to the cause the most: UK & France.
Click to expand...

You can argue that other countries will get involved in US aggression in order to attempt to have some influence because the US can easily go ahead and attack most other places without assistance.

You can't usually say that the other way around.

Certainly the UK is in no position to run operations like this on its own.

If the US really didn't want to do this, it simply wouldn't be happening.

I also don't buy the recent statements from the head of the Arab League about their surprise with the current air strikes in Libya. Does anyone believe they didn't expect strikes on at least SOME ground targets?
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

You knew it, I knew it and anyone else paying attention knew it.

It reminds me of some of the bollox spouted after Iraq kicked off, "we didn't know...."

Now, just as it was then, they're either lying or are far too stupid to be in charge of anything.
Wherever war is involved, it's usually the former.


Well, if there is any doubt, let me show you a video where Robert Gates spells it all out quite nicely as to what a no-ly zone means, well before the resolution was passed:

[youtube:dcnkfgke]1Y3f3e2ieqU[/youtube:dcnkfgke]
Click to expand...

Indeed:
"A no fly zone begins with an attack on Lybia."

Succinct and to the point.
 
What Wesley Clark said.

[youtube:1yzm43sp]oa7X4VJ0XJI[/youtube:1yzm43sp]

Behind schedule and over budget but still working on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top