PDA

View Full Version : Libya



jslaker
03-19-2011, 04:28 PM
The BBC has great live coverage here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

French fighters have begun to enforce the UN-approved no-fly zone and engaging Gaddafi loyalist armored units on the ground. The US has launched 110 Tomahawk missiles, targeting 20 Libyan military sites, with additional naval units en route. Spain has aircraft and naval units offering assistance, as well as offering use of its military facilities.

turbolag23
03-19-2011, 05:52 PM
thanks for the link. this is going to be real interesting.

jslaker
03-19-2011, 06:19 PM
To be honest, I'm slightly annoyed the west took this long to act. Similarly, I'm surprised -- but glad -- to see the leadership role France has had in all of this. They've been working hard behind the scenes for the past month to gain international consensus to intervene. They were also the first nation to formally recognize the rebel coalition as the legitimate government of Libya.

MTechnik
03-19-2011, 06:30 PM
What the hell happened there? a couple of years ago gaddhafi looked like he "got the memo" on how to behave - now he's off the deep end again.

And I am shocked the UN actually moved in to action - well as much as they ever have.

Editing: I don't mean "oh, isn't it peaceful there, what happened?" I mean "they seemed to be moving in the right direction, but just pulled a 180."

jslaker
03-19-2011, 07:06 PM
What the hell happened there? a couple of years ago gaddhafi looked like he "got the memo" on how to behave - now he's off the deep end again.

And I am shocked the UN actually moved in to action - well as much as they ever have.

Editing: I don't mean "oh, isn't it peaceful there, what happened?" I mean "they seemed to be moving in the right direction, but just pulled a 180."

What happened is that Gaddhafi responded to a threat to his power by bombing civilians.

What we're seeing in Libya is basically what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, except Gaddhafi has a strong enough core of loyalists to use force, unfortunately.

Kyle Reese
03-19-2011, 11:43 PM
Interesting to see how this one plays out, guys. While Kaddafi is a bastard, I'm not 100% prepared to root for ths opposition just yet. For all we know they could be affiliated with AQ.

Shellback
03-20-2011, 01:05 PM
A waste of money, time and lives on our part, none of which we can afford. I see nothing positive coming out of this in the long run.

turbolag23
03-20-2011, 01:18 PM
we are spreading ourselves pretty thin these days, we are fighting battles on way too many fronts and ignoring the home front. i wish someone would take a little more interest in getting our own economy stabilized.

jslaker
03-20-2011, 02:02 PM
I see nothing positive coming out of this in the long run.

I consider civilians not being bombed by their own government a pretty positive outcome, personally.

And that's hardly hyperbole; there have been pictures coming out of Libya of people of all ages and genders literally blown to pieces for weeks now. It's a humanitarian disaster there as long as Gaddhafi has free reign to do as he pleases.

torrefaction
03-20-2011, 02:38 PM
Yeah, sometimes stepping in is absolutely necessary. This has become one of those situations. What I like is that we're not taking the brunt of the load here. We're supplying logistics and intelligence, and some cruise missiles. We're letting the rest of the UN do the heavy lifting for once. We're leading, but letting others do the work. Good stuff. Gaddafi can't fall soon enough.

Shellback
03-20-2011, 02:48 PM
I consider civilians not being bombed by their own government a pretty positive outcome, personally.

Do you think we'd have as much success there as we've had in Iraq? What about Rwanda and the countless other places in Africa that are in states of anarchy? There is no oil or money so there's no need to go there and defend the innocent. We're supposed to be a country of non-intervention and free trade to promote the American ideals, not the world police.

What about this situation? Should we intervene in it as well?

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates dispatched forces to Bahrain on Monday to protect the Sunni ruling family in power from the Shiite majority in Bahrain which if successful could threaten Saudi oil reserves in eastern Saudi Arabia. While Gaddafi is a madman and the Saudi Royal Family are one of the better ruling elites in the region, the case could just as easily be made for a UN resolution against Saudi Arabia and the UAE actions as the Libyan situation if this were in the best interests of the Anglo-American foreign policy and monetary interests.

Here's a quote from this article http://www.thedailybell.com/1851/Anthony-Wile-Mid-East-Conflict-Not-Exactly-About-Oil.html I recommend reading the whole thing.

Is it a coincidence that the nations states that are targeted for immediate democratic revolution are those primarily rich in oil? No. Those states, rich in oil, are the very threat to the global agenda of the Western elites, not because they will restrict shipment of oil, but because they are likely waking up to the fact that the US dollar is finished. The game is up so to speak. The ‘Net is where the real revolution is happening and it is one driven by a desire to know the truth about societal manipulation and control.

Did Western powers really invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy or because the West needed his oil? Or is it because shortly before the invasion he declared his intentions to sell oil for other currencies besides the US dollar, even in the only form of real money that truly threatens the fiat-money one-world-order kings – gold?

Do Western powers really want to invade Iran because of their nuclear ambitions (anti-democratic right?) or to secure its vast oil resources? Or is it because Iran's leaders have also determined that if China, for example, wishes to buy its oil why should they trade it in US dollars? Especially when it is on its last legs and on the verge of a complete collapse? Do Western powers really care about the people of Venezuela and the need to instill "democracy" in that country or to secure its vast oil reserves? Or are they focused instead on making sure that Chavez trades his oil in dollars as well?

The same goes for Libya, Tunisia and the rest of the oil-producing world. Oil is the one commodity that all countries need and it is imperative for the elite focused on the greater agenda of implementing one-world government that the fiat-money financing tool be utilized in international trade. The Ponzi scheme requires it. Without the ability to continually create endless amounts on money-out-of-nothing, which central banks do, there would be no ability to fund the globe spanning US industrial complex that enables the Anglosphere elite to utilize the US as its bad-boy enforcer.

I do not support Gaddafi's reign but I also do not support a war against him. The fact of the matter is people resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty. I gotta run but I do enjoy the discussion, I'll pick up on this later if you choose to talk about it further.

Please read USMC 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor recepient and Major General Smedley Butler's speech "War is a Racket". http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

jslaker
03-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Do you think we'd have as much success there as we've had in Iraq? What about Rwanda and the countless other places in Africa that are in states of anarchy? There is no oil or money so there's no need to go there and defend the innocent. We're supposed to be a country of non-intervention and free trade to promote the American ideals, not the world police.

Iraq and Libya are fundamentally different conflicts. We created the conflict in Iraq. The country was stable, albeit not a place most would choose to live, before the 2003 invasion.

Libya is in a state of outright civil war. Rebel forces control huge portions of the country. Gaddhafi's primary means of effectively projecting force has been the use of air and armored units against the rebels. This no-fly zone is taking that away from him and giving the rebels a fighting chance. The rebels have won engagements that were limited to small-arms fire more often than not.


The fact of the matter is people resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.

That's why we're not conquering and projecting air power instead. On top of that, the rebel coalition has been begging for outside assistance for weeks now. France acted as a diplomatic broker between the rebels and the Arab League, who voted to support a no-fly zone over Libya. Then the issue went to the UN Security Council who passed a resolution authorizing the use of force against Libya. The key thing here is that the rebels have been asking for help every step of the way.

This isn't about the west deciding to go in and uproot a dictator ala Iraq, but about the west providing aid to people that are desperately fighting to rid themselves of a despot. They want and have asked for our help.

David
03-20-2011, 03:06 PM
They want and have asked for our help.

Using that defense, explain our silence to the Iranian people.

jslaker
03-20-2011, 04:02 PM
Using that defense, explain our silence to the Iranian people.

As much as I wanted the Green Revolution to succeed in 2009, again, it's a fundamentally different conflict. The demonstrations never really expanded beyond street protests, and it was never particularly clear that they had strong popular support outside of major urban centers. The hardcore nature of Basij loyalist militias combined with a disarmed populace made the whole thing a tough situation.

The practical question, really, is how could the west have intervened there in an effective manner?

In Libya there is broad support for regime change, an organized opposition that has formed a provisional governing council, and has formed armed militias that have shown themselves to be capable of taking on loyalist forces. Their primary deficit is the lack of a counter to the loyalist air and armored forces; a western-imposed no-fly zone lifts that deficit.

It's a case of being able to do something that will have a clear, immediate, and positive effect on the situation on the ground. It's much harder to do so when unrest is limited to street protests.

David
03-20-2011, 04:26 PM
In Libya there is broad support for regime change, an organized opposition that has formed a provisional governing council, and has formed armed militias that have shown themselves to be capable of taking on loyalist forces. Their primary deficit is the lack of a counter to the loyalist air and armored forces; a western-imposed no-fly zone lifts that deficit.


There is broad support for a regime change in many countries, including the USA. Is the purpose of the US military to overthrow regimes who have not attacked the US? America is once again, sticking it's nose into things it should keep out of. The US military is the US military, not the global "rent-a-unit" dispatched to overthrow governments. Germany has done the right thing on this mistake which Obama now owns.



It's a case of being able to do something that will have a clear, immediate, and positive effect on the situation on the ground. It's much harder to do so when unrest is limited to street protests.

What is this "clear, immediate, and positive effect on the situation on the ground"? Is it to:

1. Kill Gadhafi?
2. Remove Gadhafi? (Alive or dead)
3. Let Gadhafi remain in power?

Because I am really confused as to what the mission or definition of success there is. What would be called a "win"? Who are these rebels the US has sided with? What do they want? How do you know what they want? Did they furnish a press release?

Kyle Reese
03-20-2011, 04:31 PM
The world is looking to us for some kind of leadership regarding this crisis in Libya, and so far they haven't gotten very much.

I never thought I would see the day that France would take the lead on initiating military action on Libya.

8 short years ago they were lambasting us for being "cowboys" for doing something similar.


In terms of a comprehensive and logical long term strategy in Libya, I'm not sure our leaders have thought that far ahead.

IIRC Venezuela has offered Kaddafi asylum if he opts to spend his twilight years in Caracas.



There is broad support for a regime change in many countries, including the USA. Is the purpose of the US military to overthrow regimes who have not attacked the US? America is once again, sticking it's nose into things it should keep out of. The US military is the US military, not the global "rent-a-unit" dispatched to overthrow governments. Germany has done the right thing on this mistake which Obama now owns.




What is this "clear, immediate, and positive effect on the situation on the ground"? Is it to:

1. Kill Gadhafi?
2. Remove Gadhafi? (Alive or dead)
3. Let Gadhafi remain in power?

Because I am really confused as to what the mission or definition of success there is. What would be called a "win"? Who are these rebels the US has sided with? What do they want? How do you know what they want? Did they furnish a press release?

Joe in PNG
03-20-2011, 04:41 PM
If there is anything my study of history has shown me, it is this.

When it comes to intervening (or not) in the affairs of other countries, you are EFFED no matter what you do. You can't win.

If you intervene, you become a Imperialistic bully who winds up in endless quagmires that turn people against us.

BUT, if you don't intervene, well, now you've become the selfish bastard who could have stopped (problem) before it got so big we had to intervene before thing got really bad, and you turn the people against you.

So, in general, it's best to operate, in as much as it is possible, according to your nation's stated ideals. And everyone will still hate you for it.

jslaker
03-20-2011, 04:51 PM
There is broad support for a regime change in many countries, including the USA.

Oh come on. That's hyperbolic at best.


Is the purpose of the US military to overthrow regimes who have not attacked the US? America is once again, sticking it's nose into things it should keep out of. The US military is the US military, not the global "rent-a-unit" dispatched to overthrow governments. Germany has done the right thing on this mistake which Obama now owns.

France has been in the lead on this every step of the way. Sarkozy's been vocal about the need for regime change, they were the first country to formally recognize the rebel coalition, and they've been responsible for most of back room diplomacy that got the the UN Security Council resolution passed in the first place.

This is an international operation, not an American one. It involves French, UK, and Spanish aircraft and ships operating from bases in Spain, Italy, and UK territories. The US is working in a support role, not a lead role.



What is this "clear, immediate, and positive effect on the situation on the ground"?

Preventing Gaddhafi from using air and armor power to massacre civilians at will.

The end game will be the Libyans removing Gaddhafi from power themselves, but this prevents him from killing en masse and destroying national infrastructure in the meantime. Gaddhafi has essentially said that he intends to make any victory over him a pyrrhic one. Left unchecked he could easily succeed at that.


Who are these rebels the US has sided with? What do they want? How do you know what they want? Did they furnish a press release?

They're human beings that want out from under a despot that has no problem with murdering them at will.

dookie1481
03-20-2011, 04:53 PM
I have to agree with Irish and David.

Does anyone think we would be acting against Libya if they weren't oil-rich?

Jay

jslaker
03-20-2011, 04:56 PM
I have to agree with Irish and David.

Does anyone think we would be acting against Libya if they weren't oil-rich?

Jay

Was Kosovo oil-rich?

The two situations are rather analogous. A dominant regional power is engaged in the active, mass slaughter of civilians, and the west is reacting by projecting air power to bring it to an end.

wl518
03-20-2011, 05:37 PM
All that money spent on the cruise missiles we launched could have went to Japan for aid instead. Le sigh. :confused:

Google the cost of 1 cruise missile-> multiply that by 110.

David
03-20-2011, 06:33 PM
Oh come on. That's hyperbolic at best.

No, it is 100% serious.


France has been in the lead on this every step of the way. Sarkozy's been vocal about the need for regime change, they were the first country to formally recognize the rebel coalition, and they've been responsible for most of back room diplomacy that got the the UN Security Council resolution passed in the first place.

Who are these rebels? Surely you can tell me that much since you support them and their cause.



Preventing Gaddhafi from using air and armor power to massacre civilians at will.

Is it the United State Military or the Global Military? Why don't we Lob a few at China and N. Korea while we're at it?




The end game will be the Libyans removing Gaddhafi from power themselves, but this prevents him from killing en masse and destroying national infrastructure in the meantime. Gaddhafi has essentially said that he intends to make any victory over him a pyrrhic one. Left unchecked he could easily succeed at that.


Where did you find the endgame goals and definitions? I'd honestly like to read it myself. Or is this just merely your own personal speculation?



They're human beings that want out from under a despot that has no problem with murdering them at will.

Sounds like China, N. Korea, and Iran. BUT because those people get killed too quickly to form a group of peace-seeking "rebels" like we have in Libya we should not help them. These swell Libyan rebels are worth our effort even though we haven't a clue as to what their idea of a "better government" entails.

jslaker
03-20-2011, 06:54 PM
No, it is 100% serious.

Show me the rebel government in the USA with an organized militia engaged in open warfare with the federal government of the United States and it might be a point worth taking seriously.



Who are these rebels?

You want a simple answer and reality doesn't work this way. You can start here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-libya/2011/03/14/ABdDPtV_story.html


Surely you can tell me that much since you support them and their cause.

Correct, I support people not being murdered by their government.


Is it the United State Military or the Global Military? Why don't we Lob a few at China and N. Korea while we're at it?

Do you not see the repeated distinction I'm making regarding open, organized resistance? And not only that, but an organized, armed resistance that has been successful in military engagements as often as not? Where else is that happening?


Where did you find the endgame goals and definitions? I'd honestly like to read it myself. Or is this just merely your own personal speculation?

Everyone involved from the rebels to Obama to Sarkozy to the Arab League has been saying that Gaddhafi's removal from power is the end goal, just like the ultimate goal of the opposition was removing ben-Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt. The difference is Gaddhafi has demonstrated a willingness to kill indiscriminately.



These swell Libyan rebels are worth our effort even though we haven't a clue as to what their idea of a "better government" entails.

They're still human beings. Shit like this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-22/libya-protests-shocking-photos-and-video/

Has been happening on a daily basis in their country for the past month.

What happens after Gaddhafi is a question mark, sure, but I absolutely can't shrug my shoulders at what's going on there and ignore it. Anything is better than that.

David
03-20-2011, 08:49 PM
Show me the rebel government in the USA with an organized militia engaged in open warfare with the federal government of the United States and it might be a point worth taking seriously.


Well you've got a point because if there was one it would be called a "COUP" and I wonder how our government would react to that? Would Libyan Rebels come to our aid? I was not aware it was the task of our government to participate in bloody, violent coups.





You want a simple answer and reality doesn't work this way. You can start here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rebel-council-seeks-to-transform-libya/2011/03/14/ABdDPtV_story.html

You are missing my point, no matter how wonderful or noble these groups pretend to be you are not even sure who they are. Even if we had a complete understanding of who they are and even if we funded them and put them in there ourselves ( not that we would do something like that :rolleyes: )... The point is that we have no right in participating in a coup where our own government would most likely respond the same way Gadfly is to prevent it.



Correct, I support people not being murdered by their government.

But you don't support overthrowing the governments of Iran, China, N. Korea etc, by the same means we are providing the rebels in Libya. Odd...




Do you not see the repeated distinction I'm making regarding open, organized resistance? And not only that, but an organized, armed resistance that has been successful in military engagements as often as not? Where else is that happening?

You mean a bloody coup as opposed to a bloodless coup? Sure I grasp your definitions. I just say neither justify the use of our military nor the lives of our service men / women. Let them handle and sort out their own affairs.




Everyone involved from the rebels to Obama to Sarkozy to the Arab League has been saying that Gaddhafi's removal from power is the end goal, just like the ultimate goal of the opposition was removing ben-Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt. The difference is Gaddhafi has demonstrated a willingness to kill indiscriminately.

The difference is that Gadfly is responding to a COUP, sure he obtained power via a coup as well in 1969 and I guess he has it coming but NOT with our aid or the lives of our people or by our hand.





They're still human beings. S**t like this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-22/libya-protests-shocking-photos-and-video/

Has been happening on a daily basis in their country for the past month.

What happens after Gaddhafi is a question mark, sure, but I absolutely can't shrug my shoulders at what's going on there and ignore it. Anything is better than that.

Sad and tragic yes but similar stuff takes place in Iran, China, N. Korea, etc and you seen no justification in aiding those people since they are not able to assimilate an armed coup. Once a big group forms and takes up arms THEN you are ready to aid them but if they are unable to form such a group it's tough luck.

jslaker
03-20-2011, 10:57 PM
Well you've got a point because if there was one it would be called a "COUP" and I wonder how our government would react to that? Would Libyan Rebels come to our aid? I was not aware it was the task of our government to participate in bloody, violent coups.

It's no more a coup than the American Revolution was.

Incidentally, that was a revolution made possible largely on the back of foreign aid by way of France and to a lesser extent Spain. Oh, and the people responsible felt the need for armed, popular revolution was so important that they felt it necessary to guarantee that right by way of Constitutional mandate.


You are missing my point, no matter how wonderful or noble these groups pretend to be you are not even sure who they are. Even if we had a complete understanding of who they are and even if we funded them and put them in there ourselves ( not that we would do something like that :rolleyes: )... The point is that we have no right in participating in a coup where our own government would most likely respond the same way Gadfly is to prevent it.

If our own government began wantonly bombing and shelling civilians, I'd hope the rest of the world would take notice and come to our aid.


But you don't support overthrowing the governments of Iran, China, N. Korea etc, by the same means we are providing the rebels in Libya. Odd...

That's a lovely strawman you've built there. Again, please point out where these nations -- or any countries for that matter -- have been engaged in a state of civil war where the incumbent powers have chosen to assert their will by way of open massacre using air and armored power without recourse. That's the criteria I've laid out, repeatedly, as being the basis for intervention.


You mean a bloody coup as opposed to a bloodless coup?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27etat


The difference is that Gadfly is responding to a COUP

Coup != Armed, popular rebellion.


Sad and tragic yes but similar stuff takes place in Iran, China, N. Korea, etc and you seen no justification in aiding those people since they are not able to assimilate an armed coup.

Similar only if you're using a scale incredibly lacking in granularity to gauge things.

The difference is a matter of practicality. You're comparing disarmed populaces to one that is armed, organized and has a very real shot at self-determination.

Do I wish we could do something to help those people out? Sure. Do I think it's realistic? Not really.

In Libya, we have a very real opportunity to help get a nation out from under despot and allow them to figure out where they want their country to go from there. That's the difference, as I've repeatedly said.

dookie1481
03-20-2011, 11:01 PM
Was Kosovo oil-rich?

The two situations are rather analogous. A dominant regional power is engaged in the active, mass slaughter of civilians, and the west is reacting by projecting air power to bring it to an end.

In 1999, we weren't fighting decade-long wars on two fronts, nor did we have such a massive deficit as we have now.

Let Libya deal with their own problems. I'm tired of us pissing money away fighting pointless battles across the globe.

jslaker
03-20-2011, 11:13 PM
Let Libya deal with their own problems. I'm tired of us pissing money away fighting pointless battles across the globe.

Funny. People used this exact same argument to attack the campaign in Kosovo at the time. GWB even campaigned on it in 1999/2000.

(Of course we know he then went on to open that second front you're talking about, which basically ruined our chances of stabilizing Afghanistan).

Also worth reiterating that the US is not in the lead here. France and the UK are doing the majority of the heavy lifting; I haven't even heard about US air forces being deployed to the area. Right now we have around $62M in cruise missiles (about 1/10th of what we spend in Iraq per day and a naval group moved to the Mediterranean involved.

David
03-21-2011, 12:17 AM
It's no more a coup than the American Revolution was.

Incidentally, that was a revolution made possible largely on the back of foreign aid by way of France and to a lesser extent Spain. Oh, and the people responsible felt the need for armed, popular revolution was so important that they felt it necessary to guarantee that right by way of Constitutional mandate.



If our own government began wantonly bombing and shelling civilians, I'd hope the rest of the world would take notice and come to our aid.



That's a lovely strawman you've built there. Again, please point out where these nations -- or any countries for that matter -- have been engaged in a state of civil war where the incumbent powers have chosen to assert their will by way of open massacre using air and armored power without recourse. That's the criteria I've laid out, repeatedly, as being the basis for intervention.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27etat



Coup != Armed, popular rebellion.



Similar only if you're using a scale incredibly lacking in granularity to gauge things.

The difference is a matter of practicality. You're comparing disarmed populaces to one that is armed, organized and has a very real shot at self-determination.

Do I wish we could do something to help those people out? Sure. Do I think it's realistic? Not really.

In Libya, we have a very real opportunity to help get a nation out from under despot and allow them to figure out where they want their country to go from there. That's the difference, as I've repeatedly said.


We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

David
03-21-2011, 12:25 AM
I haven't even heard about US air forces being deployed to the area.

We have had 3 B2 Spirits here in Missouri over there dropping bombs in Libya.

dookie1481
03-21-2011, 12:30 AM
We have had 3 B2 Spirits here in Missouri over there dropping bombs in Libya.

My friend's fiancée was just sent over there on one day's notice.

David
03-21-2011, 01:27 AM
My friend's fiancée was just sent over there on one day's notice.

The ones here at Whiteman fly it round-trip, 25 hours. They fly over, drop their load then turn around and fly back.

Click for video of one returning from bombing Libya:

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg10/imdavid/th_b2returning.jpg (http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/gg10/imdavid/?action=view&current=b2returning.mp4)

Shellback
03-21-2011, 10:27 AM
Interesting discussion thus far with some very valid points on both side. I'm still in the non-intervention boat and don't see myself jumping ship anytime soon due to the fact that this is completly unrelated to our national interests or security. I'd like to add what I believe are a few key points that haven't been touched on thus far.

The Charter of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members." Its Members are States (not We the People). Libya is a member. The U.N. intervention is violating its own Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty, and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty.

Article 2 refers repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya.

A Chapter 7 Resolution has been enacted and is the U.N. equivalent to a formal declaration of war. The US ambassador to the UN is already pushing for a ground war in the country to further complicate things. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8388075/West-should-go-beyond-no-fly-zone-US-says.html

On another note...

The King of Bahrain has called in troops from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait to attack pro-democracy protestors in Bahrain. They're using American tanks, guns and mercenaries to crush the pro-democracy movement there and yet the world remains silent.

Thus it is that with Washington's tacit blessing, Saudi troops are helping Bahrain's U.S.-equipped security forces to massacre peaceful protesters. This was done, once again, to secure an Arab League resolution asking the Security Council to authorize a "no-fly zone" in Libya, which the public was told would be a "limited" engagement. Of course a "no-fly zone" is an act of war. When warplanes invade and occupy a country's air space, and the pilots are given orders to kill, foreplay has ended and intromission has occurred.

Things like this are happening in Bahrain and we do nothing.


www.youtube.com/embed/D9W_-0uGN1E


www.youtube.com/embed/8tkG7jkUYTg

I think this is really interesting, the history of US military intervention: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8388075/West-should-go-beyond-no-fly-zone-US-says.html

Crazy busy day but I'll try to participate in further discussions when I have time. Glad to be a member of this board where this is being discussed in such a thoughtful and respectful manner without the typical insults being thrown. Have a good day.

dookie1481
03-21-2011, 12:49 PM
The ones here at Whiteman fly it round-trip, 25 hours. They fly over, drop their load then turn around and fly back.

Click for video of one returning from bombing Libya:

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg10/imdavid/th_b2returning.jpg (http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/gg10/imdavid/?action=view&current=b2returning.mp4)

Sorry, wasn't implying she was involved with B2s. She has something to do with Predators.

David
03-21-2011, 01:56 PM
Sorry, wasn't implying she was involved with B2s. She has something to do with Predators.

No I know, I didn't take it as any implication.

dookie1481
03-21-2011, 03:01 PM
No I know, I didn't take it as any implication.

I've read about B2 pilots making bombing runs from Missouri; man, that has to be painfully boring.

MechEng
03-22-2011, 05:49 PM
My $0.02

I don't think this Libya mission is us getting into a third conflict. We are just simply conducting a SEAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses) mission, using our cruise missiles to take out Libya's air defense (AD) system and military leadership. This is something that needs to be done before any coalition can safely enforce a "No Fly Zone". Libya has (scratch that HAD) one of the best AD systems in the middle east second only to what the Egyptians have. Once we feel confident Libya's AD system has been rendered insignificant we can then hand over control of the mission to the French so they can F%$&ck it up as usual.

I find it funny how Russia rejects us taking military action. They don't want to see the US Navy & Airforce trash the high tech AD system they provided Libya.

Kyle Reese
03-25-2011, 02:47 PM
What is the US mission in Libya? Not being facetious, I'm just wondering why we're involved in a 3rd shooting war in a Muslim country and there hasn't been a "my fellow Americans" type address to the American people to articulate the need to send our brave men & women of the Armed Forces into harms way.

Mjolnir
03-28-2011, 05:02 AM
Was Kosovo oil-rich?

The two situations are rather analogous. A dominant regional power is engaged in the active, mass slaughter of civilians, and the west is reacting by projecting air power to bring it to an end.


Actually, Kosovo represents an extensive oil pipeline endpoint. We should not be in the business of securing natural resources by threat, duress or coercion.

Everyone should familiarize themselves with the writings of Brzezinski (since he's arrogant enough not to mince words) and Kissinger.

THEN AND ONLY THEN study what's going on in the world.