View Full Version : Is this just sabre rattling, or should we start worrying
I do not know about anyone else, but I am worried, if the US and the UK do create a no fly zone, that it will lead to another Iraq/Afghanistan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12603320
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 11:20
Sorry, we're skint now and can't afford to run around the world anymore sorting out other folks wars for them. Pull all troops back home and defend our own shores in case they try another Lockerbie!
It will be difficult for the RAF to effectively enforce a no-fly zone over Libya from it's nearest operational airfield at Akrotiri in Cyprus. So this looks like it would have to be a NATO initiative controlled from the Air Command HQ in Ramstein and operating out of Italian airfields or NATO Carriers off the Libyan coast.
As with all things NATO we'll just have to hurry up and wait.
Shabbychic
01-Mar-11, 11:24
From what I can make out, the people in Libya, desperately want us to create a no fly zone, to stop Gaddafi from bringing in more mercenaries and also to stop any aeriel attacks in the east. What they don't want is any foreign troops landing in Libya.
As an aside, anyone fancy a dance with Gaddafi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBY-0n4esNY)? :D
Ive always thought Gaddafi was trouble. I can understand why countries do their best to keep in touch with such regimes. His time has come. If there's anything Britain can do to ease the tragedy in Libyia, I'm behind it.
It's a difficult one. I think something should be done to protect the people, but I don't know if we're the ones who should be doing it.
All the recent unrest in the middle east worries me. Are these countries ready for democracy? Iraq, for me, is a mess because of tribal differences and sectarianism. Could the rest go the same way?
The Egyptian riots were apparently led by the popular group, the "Muslim Brotherhood". Now this group actively support Palestinian fighting against Israel. If, when the elections are carried out, this group get in power, the goalposts move. Israel, currently being attacked by what it sees are terrorists, now has the government of a nearby country supporting these terrorists. Would they have a case for war with Egypt? - Maybe.
And if Israel start bombing Arabs, the other Arabs are going to get annoyed.
Potential big problems ahead. I'd rather Britain stay clear to be honest.
So this looks like it would have to be a NATO initiative controlled from the Air Command HQ in Ramstein and operating out of Italian airfields or NATO Carriers off the Libyan coast.
As with all things NATO we'll just have to hurry up and wait.
Why operate out of Germany? When the HQ for the US 6th Fleet is in Naples, AF South is a combined NATO HQ
Why operate out of Germany? When the HQ for the US 6th Fleet is in Naples, AF South is a combined NATO HQ
I would expect NATO's major air operations to be directed from NATO Air Command rather than a subordinate air/sea/land command, at least in the initial stages. If and when the decision is made to deploy ground troops in support of humanitarian aid then I would expect proportionate air operations to be devolved to the Air Command element of AF South. I would not expect aircraft to operate out of Ramstein AFB since there is a number of airfields closer to the area of operations.
We have to accept that the proposed operation has to be seen as a NATO effort and not just a USA/UK effort.
Why is it always us and the US who go round policing the world? I would like to see other countries taking the lead on this, what about France, Spain, Russia or even India?
If we get involved our taxes will go up even higher to pay for it....
Stay out of it Cameron is my message !!!
C3......:eek::mad:
The Russians 'shot it down'. 'Scuse the pun.
They called it 'Superflous'.
orkneycadian
01-Mar-11, 13:14
Why is it always us and the US who go round policing the world? I would like to see other countries taking the lead on this, what about France, Spain, Russia or even India?
If we get involved our taxes will go up even higher to pay for it....
Stay out of it Cameron is my message !!!
Exactly - Unless the bankers are going to step forward and pay for it out of their bonuses, we have no money to look after our own at the moment. Let them get on with it, and make sure they dont send any planes with bombs in them over our country again.
Why is it always us and the US who go round policing the world? I would like to see other countries taking the lead on this, what about France, Spain, Russia or even India?
If we get involved our taxes will go up even higher to pay for it....
Stay out of it Cameron is my message !!!
C3......:eek::mad:
Enforcing an no-fly zone over Libya will possibly involve the Italian, Spanish, Turkish and German air forces. I doubt whether the USA/UK would go it alone.
Enforcing an no-fly zone over Libya will possibly involve the Italian, Spanish, Turkish and German air forces. I doubt whether the USA/UK would go it alone.
It would appear that the US/UK and Australia wanted it but it was vetoed.
tonkatojo
01-Mar-11, 13:42
Sorry, we're skint now and can't afford to run around the world anymore sorting out other folks wars for them. Pull all troops back home and defend our own shores in case they try another Lockerbie!
Just watch where the cash miraculously comes from to make Messrs Cameron and Clegg look good and divert attention from the pillage to our nation from them.
The Drunken Duck
01-Mar-11, 13:47
There will be no such "no fly zone", it wont be needed. There just isnt the air threat, its something that was dreamed up by politicians and the media who havent a clue how things work in the real world. Doing it is simple enough though, we ran combat air cover of the eastern med from RAF Akrotiri in 1991 with ease. And that was with much less capable AWACS, tankers and fighters than we have now. It certainly wouldnt need the involvement of more than one or two air forces. That would be to keep the rules of engagement simple, wartime rules of engagement are pretty straightforward but peacetime ops like this are far more complicated. It wouldnt work anyway as lethal force would have to be actioned by the UN. And in Bosnia the Serbs well knew that by the time we got permission to splash them they could take off, do what they had to and land completely unmolested. And they did, all the time. The no fly zone there was an utter joke and even if Libyan Air Force jets were strafing civvies by the time permission came down to engage their pilots would be back home having a snack. The only reason I suspect we wanted it was due to the fact that one of the Herc's that took the last lot of Brits and other nationals out took a round through the cockpit and we have more guys to get out. And anytime the Chinooks go in top cover is always a good idea. Its standard operating procedure in fact. The biggest threat is from ground fire, not from the air and the Libyan Air Force.
Leave them to it, its not our problem. Once the country starts introducing a new Government just watch us here in the west get the blame for everything anyway. Let their arab brothers rush to their aid, they are always preaching they are all brothers. Let them prove it. We should be concentrating on helping the Kiwi's in Christchurch in my view thats where our aid efforts should be going right now.
fingalmacool
01-Mar-11, 19:45
OK what was the Foreign office doing in the run-up to this balls up, and why wasnt a squad of SAS put in early to cut the head of the :confused
I thought that one of the jobs the Foreign Office was there to do was to keep it's people in the country, (US) informed of what was going on and give advise to get out if the hit the fan, instead we were the last turkeys in the shop to get help, "how did this happen"
And the opportunity must have been there to take the Mad Dog out in all the hullabaloo?:confused
oldmarine
01-Mar-11, 19:51
Sorry, we're skint now and can't afford to run around the world anymore sorting out other folks wars for them. Pull all troops back home and defend our own shores in case they try another Lockerbie!
Posting as a USA citizen, I certainly agree with this poster. I have long maintained that the USA should pull all their troops back home and guard their own borders. We have had troops stationed all around the world in countries since WW2. This has been too long and much too costly.
Whilst deploring the fact that Gadafi might just use all the weapons he can muster against the uprising, this is a domestic affair and we should not get involved .
We would stand condemned as it would be seen as the west protecting the flow of oil and comercial interest above all else when we do nothing to alleviate the problems of Palestine ,Zimbabwe and other like countries who have little of such things.
What we should be doing is the utmost to aid Tunisia in the repatriation of the thousands camped on their borders, this would be seen as a gesture of good will that might have a longer term influence in the area and it does n't take alot to arrange ships,flights and basic neccesities to sustain them until an evacuation plan is set in place.
It's happening! No-fly zone approved by the UN British forces could be in action over Libya as early as tomorrow - with support from Arab allies.. A draft before the 15-member body in New York backs action "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack". It also proposes a no-fly zone to help,
10 for
0 against
5 Abstentions
Resolution:
Imposes "ban on all flights in Libyan airspace" except for aid planes.
Authorises member states to "take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack".
Excludes occupation force.
Toughens arms embargo by calling on all member states to "inspect in their territory vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya".
Widens asset freeze to include Libyan Investment Authority, Central Bank of Libya and Libyan National Oil Company among others
*BBC24 News
I actually thought Gadafi was going to win through.
I doubt it now.
I might be wrong, but I can't help but feel that there will be future wars as a result of what's been happening in the middle east recently.
I can see this getting very messy very quickly. Gaddafi will, in all probability, push his army to take Benghazi within the next 48 hours before any any coalition initiative can get under way.
At least it gives the Ark Royal and the Harriers something to do.:)
'ang on ........... Dave! We ain't got anything to send fella!!
John Little
18-Mar-11, 07:49
It is actually in our interests to impose a no fly zone.
If you do not think so, then you probably do not drive a car; when the price hits over £2.00 a litre because Libyan oil has been cut or the price hiked then you might think differently.
Cameron has burned his boats with Gadhafi. Having normal relations with him after this would be next to impossible- the guy is a gangster and there would be no more sweet deals for British companies.
On the other hand, if the rebels win and we have not helped them, then there will be no sweet deals either. A no fly zone would probably mean a rebel victory in the end, and a new government friendly to us.
But no boots on the ground is right.
orkneycadian
18-Mar-11, 09:33
So letting a mass murderer out of jail just for the fun of it isn't enough to keep us sweet with the Libyans then? Have we been conned by the governments yet again?
John Little
18-Mar-11, 11:11
So letting a mass murderer out of jail just for the fun of it isn't enough to keep us sweet with the Libyans then? Have we been conned by the governments yet again?
Megrahi's guilt depends on very slender threads. He was a sacrifice to appease public opinion. A complete patsy. The real guilty ones have never answered for it - Jim Swire thinks that too and I think he's a very grounded man.
Governments always con you in such things. It's a bit like selling meat but hiding the abbatoir. But hey - that's called 'representative' democracy.
So letting a mass murderer out of jail just for the fun of it isn't enough to keep us sweet with the Libyans then? Have we been conned by the governments yet again?
Let's not go there, it's a whole different debate. The whole history of Britain's dealings with Gaddafi is pock-marked with questionable 'deals' culminating with Blair's meeting him in a tent at the side of the road in March 2004.
The issue now is how does any coalition bring this whole episode to a quick and clean end?
Have we been conned by the governments yet again?
Surely your not implying that politicians lie?
orkneycadian
18-Mar-11, 12:42
In any case, we dont have any money left to run round fighting other folks wars for them. We're skint remember - Tough times, tough choices and all that. Before we know it, this'll be another 10 year long "humanitarian crisis" (always a good excuse for a war....) that'll cost us umpteen trillion a year and result in hundreds of British troops coming back in boxes.
Does anyone know who was supplying Gaddafi's airforce? I think the French should have very good intel. on the capabilities of his jets.
Does anyone know who was supplying Gaddafi's airforce? I think the French should have very good intel. on the capabilities of his jets.
I would not trust our so called Nato allies. The French sold us and the Argentinians the same missile system the Exocet, but they forgot to inform us that the Argentinians had fitted them to their aircraft, most of our losses in the Falklands were to French manufactured missiles.
Does anyone know who was supplying Gaddafi's airforce? I think the French should have very good intel. on the capabilities of his jets.
Gaddafi’s airpower consists of up to 45 Sukhoi SU-22s which are Soviet built ground attack aircraft. They can carry a variety of weapons, bombs, rockets and guided missiles. They are also armed with two very effective 30mm cannon.
Up till now there have been numerous instances of SU-22s dropping their bombs well away from their targets. This could be deliberate but it could also be that the Libyan pilots are poorly trained and have not had adequate flying hours to gain and maintain the proficiency that flying such a sophisticated jet requires.
Gaddafi’s forces are also equipped with a version of the Soviet Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunship. These are armed with cannons or multi-barrelled machine-guns. They can also carry anti-tank missiles and deliver other munitions against ground targets.
It has been difficult to ascertain how much of this hardware is in fact serviceable; or what the morale of the pilots and crew is.
According to Reuters, “Libya declared a cease-fire in the country to protect civilians and comply with a United Nations resolution passed overnight,” said Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa.
orkneycadian
18-Mar-11, 14:22
.... said Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa.
Sounds like some kind of dessert....
Wasn't there some prediction that the next world war would start in the middle east?
Theres a good chance of it. Theres always a war/conflict/skirmish in the middle east.
btw theres a far east and a middle east, is there a near east?
Theres a good chance of it. Theres always a war/conflict/skirmish in the middle east.
btw theres a far east and a middle east, is there a near east?
Of course there is. Wick.
“Libya declared a cease-fire in the country to protect civilians and comply with a United Nations resolution passed overnight,”
The start of gameplaying methinks. I can see this getting very dirty, twisted, political and dark. Saif is the one that worries me more than mad dog, a complete deluded, detached and plot lost nutter is one thing. But a smart, switched on, well (western) educated nutter is another thing all together.
oldmarine
18-Mar-11, 19:57
Wasn't there some prediction that the next world war would start in the middle east?
I believe so... I believe it will be called Armagedon(sp?).
Trouble is - even with some Arab states asking for NATO help.. if it gets dirty or prolonged they will turn on the West as being imperialist, anti-Moslem, Americans all. You name it there will be a back-lash. Out there it is all money and greed - they would just as soon stab each other in the back for a few dollars.
I think we SHOULD go in but I think we should do it knowing the consequences.
orkneycadian
19-Mar-11, 10:54
I really wonder where it will all stop. A look at the BBC news website (world section) this morning shows shenanigans ongoing in Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan and the Ivory Coast on top of the carry on in Libya, and some residual upset in Egypt and Tunisia. Sure, folk have been knocking 7 bells out of each other ever since sticks were invented, but the stage appears to be set for every country that doesn't like its leadership to rise up and take pot shots at them. Fair enough, as long as the UK is not expected to take the lead in wading in and trying to sort it out!
tonkatojo
19-Mar-11, 12:40
I would not trust our so called Nato allies. The French sold us and the Argentinians the same missile system the Exocet, but they forgot to inform us that the Argentinians had fitted them to their aircraft, most of our losses in the Falklands were to French manufactured missiles.
I think you could be mistaken about us being sold "Exocet missiles" The Argi's had them from the French but not us.
I really wonder where it will all stop. A look at the BBC news website (world section) this morning shows shenanigans ongoing in Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan and the Ivory Coast on top of the carry on in Libya, and some residual upset in Egypt and Tunisia. Sure, folk have been knocking 7 bells out of each other ever since sticks were invented, but the stage appears to be set for every country that doesn't like its leadership to rise up and take pot shots at them. Fair enough, as long as the UK is not expected to take the lead in wading in and trying to sort it out!
Like you orkneycadian I wonder where this is all going.
I can't see the USA/UK getting involved in Bahrain. The USA has a major strategic military base there and won't want to upset the ruling elite. I can't see the USA/UK getting involved in Yemen since the USA is dependent upon President Ali Abdullah Saleh to contain Al-Qaeda. I can't see the USA/UK getting involved in Saudi Arabia despite it being one of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world. It provides the west with the oil it needs and so the King and his sycophants can continue to be as repressive as they wish.
All the other countries will be considered of no consequence because they either don't have enough oil to sell or have no strategic significance.
I guess we can only hope that David Cameron is aware that our military cannot 'punch above its weight' with the resources he has left them with.
The downed aircraft. Looked to me like and air to air attack. No one appeared to be shooting from the ground.
I'm guessing with modern missiles and stuff an attacking aircraft would not need to overfly Libya as the activity seems to be on the coast.
Would be nice if someone asked the rebels to stop shooting at aircraft now though.
The downed aircraft. Looked to me like and air to air attack. No one appeared to be shooting from the ground.
I'm guessing with modern missiles and stuff an attacking aircraft would not need to overfly Libya as the activity seems to be on the coast.
Would be nice if someone asked the rebels to stop shooting at aircraft now though.
I wonder? 'French military jets are already preventing pro-Gaddafi forces from attacking rebel positions, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says.'
The world has gone mad once again. UK has no business attaking Libya or anywhere else. David Cameron can't sort out his own country, let alone Libya. How come Cutback Britain can suddenly afford a war?
Cheap oil from a grateful Libyan people?
112 Tomahawks fired @ $565,000 a piece.....I thought there was a reccession on and we all had to face cutbacks!!!
What are we going to have to cut now to pay for this lot?
Camerons words..."We are all in this together" keep ringing in my ears, it's worse than tinnititus.....
C3....:mad::eek::roll:
orkneycadian
20-Mar-11, 11:09
At todays crude oil prices, the Tomahawks represent about half a very big oil tanker full. Add the cost of getting the missiles into position to fire them, and the cost of the folk to do the firing, and I guess thats at least a few free tankers of oil heading our way?
Or have I just not woken up this morning yet.... ;)
I think you could be mistaken about us being sold "Exocet missiles" The Argi's had them from the French but not us.
Once again your are deluded in your statements, not sure if it is senility or just plain stupidity, check out this link on County Class Destroyers, stick to your so called jokes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_class_destroyer
It seems 'the west' is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Chief of the Arab League Amr Moussa is complaining that the coalition bombardment had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians." Maybe we should just tell Colonel Gaddafi we've done enough and let the Arab nations sort out their own mess, :confused :eek:
I think you could be mistaken about us being sold "Exocet missiles" The Argi's had them from the French but not us.
The Royal Navy had exocets on a dozen or so ships at the time of the Falklands.
I don't know if they ever used them though.
oldmarine
20-Mar-11, 21:34
It seems 'the west' is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Chief of the Arab League Amr Moussa is complaining that the coalition bombardment had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians." Maybe we should just tell Colonel Gaddafi we've done enough and let the Arab nations sort out their own mess, :confused :eek:
I'm all for letting the Arab nations handle their own problems. Our countries did enough together during WW2 to solve the world problems. This should be an Arab problem for all the Arab nations.
tonkatojo
20-Mar-11, 22:09
Once again your are deluded in your statements, not sure if it is senility or just plain stupidity, check out this link on County Class Destroyers, stick to your so called jokes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_class_destroyer
It would appear I am mistaken, nothing like deluded though just a mistake but it would appear you are quite rabid with your dislike of me, perhaps I should keep to the joke section but I doubt that would keep you off my back so touche for now.
The Drunken Duck
21-Mar-11, 08:55
I'm all for letting the Arab nations handle their own problems. Our countries did enough together during WW2 to solve the world problems. This should be an Arab problem for all the Arab nations.
Hear Hear.
Or it would be if they could fight anything more than sleep. I am glad I left the Air Force when I did, I would want no part in this just like I wanted no part in Iraq. But you only have to look at the past to see the Arab nations talk a good fight but when it comes to something more than burning defenceless flags and chanting a bit they are crap. You only have to look at the Arab League and their 180 degree turn. I am at unease with this action because we have basically taken a side in a civil war, a lot of the "civilians" we are protecting seem to be seriously tooled up. Last time I checked that meant they were combatants.
Whenever we get involved in these countries it ALWAYS reverts to the old western imperialism crusader garbage. In 1990 when Saddam rolled into Kuwait the Saudi's called us despite having one of the best equipped military in the world. A Saudi national was upset about this and offered to protect the kingdom. He was laughed at when they checked out his few hundred followers in sandals compared to the western forces that could be mustered. This rankled a bit and he has caused us a bit of trouble since then for us in the West. His name was Osama bin Laden.
Moral of the story ?? .. actions like this ALWAYS come back to bite us in the rear.
Where are the Arabs? An interesting piece here (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html) by Robert Grenier
"..There will be no such "no fly zone", it wont be needed. There just isnt the air threat, its something that was dreamed up by politicians and the media who havent a clue how things work in the real world.."
Ahem....
Doing it is simple enough though, we ran combat air cover of the eastern med from RAF Akrotiri in 1991 with ease. And that was with much less capable AWACS, tankers and fighters than we have now. It certainly wouldnt need the involvement of more than one or two air forces.
6 (USA, UK, France, Canada, Qatar and UAE) and counting….
“..The only reason I suspect we wanted it was due to the fact that one of the Herc's that took the last lot of Brits and other nationals out took a round through the cockpit and we have more guys to get out. And anytime the Chinooks go in top cover is always a good idea. Its standard operating procedure in fact. The biggest threat is from ground fire, not from the air and the Libyan Air Force.
Well DD it seems that you are no longer kept ”in the loop” for “ops”
So that we know where you are coming from, can you advise us all of when you left the armed forces?
rob murray
21-Mar-11, 17:11
Why is it always us and the US who go round policing the world? I would like to see other countries taking the lead on this, what about France, Spain, Russia or even India?
If we get involved our taxes will go up even higher to pay for it....
Stay out of it Cameron is my message !!!
C3......:eek::mad:
Do you not find it a tad suspicious when, regardless of whose in power, money can always be found for "warfare" ?
Do you not find it a tad suspicious when, regardless of whose in power, money can always be found for "warfare" ?
.....and this one is going to cost us a lot more yet. [disgust]
rob murray
21-Mar-11, 18:07
.....and this one is going to cost us a lot more yet. [disgust]
Yes..but...knock out / down strategic targets ( buildings ) and present the re build bill ( the more we take out the bigger the bill ) to Libya ( normal practise ) of course |"we" re construct and...voila we can create employment and make money at this malarkey
The Drunken Duck
21-Mar-11, 23:02
Ahem....
6 (USA, UK, France, Canada, Qatar and UAE) and counting….
Well DD it seems that you are no longer kept ”in the loop” for “ops”
So that we know where you are coming from, can you advise us all of when you left the armed forces?
I would but one thing is stopping me. I dont care what you think about anything, ever.
I would but one thing is stopping me. I dont care what you think about anything, ever.
You have seen the World as I have seen it DD....Others have no idea. They just sit on their little podium and do the professing thingy!
Ignorance is bliss.
The Drunken Duck
22-Mar-11, 02:45
You have seen the World as I have seen it DD....Others have no idea. They just sit on their little podium and do the professing thingy!
Ignorance is bliss.
True, always thought there were three types of people in this world. Those who make things happen, those who watch what happens and those who wonder what on earth just happened. The self proclaimed experts always seem to be in the second and/or third group !!
I just laugh now and move along.
You have seen the World as I have seen it DD....Others have no idea.
Ignorance is bliss.
True I just laugh now and move along.
Is this sabre rattling or should we be worried? :eek::lol:
The Drunken Duck
22-Mar-11, 14:10
Is this sabre rattling or should we be worried? :eek::lol:
Rattling a sabre makes noise .. drawing it doesn't. And I bet the Libyans didnt have much notice before the first weapon impacted on their turf.
All the sabre rattling about the "no fly" zone was just noise, at the time I posted there was no need for one there was no international agreement or UN resolution. Putting fighters in their airspace is violating a sovereign countries airspace. And if we had done that and then downed a Libyan jet it would have been an act of war. And you have to think about downing aircraft over urban areas with the risk of civilian casualties that carries. A "no fly" zone is virtually useless anyway and it isnt like the Libyans had lots of jets in the sky to warrant it. The big clue about a "no fly" zone is the name, if they arent flying then whats the point. Putting lots of our jets in the sky for the Libyan SAM network to target just gives them something to shoot at. It didnt work in Bosnia and it didnt work in Iraq. In Iraq they just moved things by road and our jets spent lots of time trying to break radar locks from their SAM radars. In Bosnia by the time the UN gave persmission to down Serb choppers they had landed and done what they set out to do. Often a permission to engage and enforce the UN sanctioned "No Fly" zone coulod not be given because the person required to do so was at lunch/in a meeting etc etc. It was a farce.
What we are doing now is destroying their Air Defence network so they cant put jets up in the first place. Prevention is better than a cure. And also take out the SAM sites and anti aircraft guns so that when it all dies down we can patrol the skies without worrying. Because on the news we see lots of hot lead going skyward. The "No Fly" zone approach is only effective if you have made sure they cant. What we are doing now is called SEAD or Suppresion of Enemy Air Defences. And we could do that with the Americans on our own, we dont need all the countries involved to do that. We have put up a dozen or so aircraft for it, the Canadians have put four F/A-18's, the Norwegians ten or so. The Americans have ninety five aircraft on their carrier covering fighter, attack, electronic warfare and airborne early warning. They can even use their fighters as refuellers with buddy pods. So they hardly need much help, even from us. The only reason so many countries are involved is political, the UN Resolution was an international agreement so it must be international by nature. Plus the Americans dont want to be seen to be leading military action in another arab country so it takes a few other countries to muster the power they can with one carrier and an Air Force Expeditonary Wing. This seems to have escaped some previous posters.
It might have been nice for us to have had a carrier and some Harriers of our own but our Government retired the Harrier and Ark Royal a few months back as we dont need them apparently, even the sneaky beaky electronic gathering Nimrod variant thats out there now was due to be withdrawn from service on the 31st of this month. Its been extended for 90 days because of the need to use it in Libya.
But I would worry, getting into situations like these is a lot easier than getting out. Witness Afghanistan.
DD - I'm glad you said, "The only reason so many countries are involved is political." It's these politicians that make things happen and we are left to watch what happens or wonder what on earth just happened. It's not easy to just laugh now and move along when you and yours are drawn into yet another political debacle.
IMO our politicians should have pressed the Arab League and the African Union to address this problem and kept us out of it.
Walter Ego
23-Mar-11, 08:30
DD - I'm glad you said, "The only reason so many countries are involved is political." It's these politicians that make things happen and we are left to watch what happens or wonder what on earth just happened. It's not easy to just laugh now and move along when you and yours are drawn into yet another political debacle.
IMO our politicians should have pressed the Arab League and the African Union to address this problem and kept us out of it.
Unfortunately, you can press the Arab League and the African Union all you want. All they will ever do is make noise. It is far easier to step back and then blame the West for the result of their own apathy (at best) towards the plight of their fellow States.
I'm not saying that '"West is Good - Africa/Middle East Bad", far from it. But they will happily sit back and watch their neighbours rip each other (or themselves) to peices.
Regarding Air Operations in Libya, DD is absolutely correct in how he describes a 'No Fly Zone' by itself as being inept. Also the rules of engagement would appear to be far broader than what we had in the past - looks like the UN is learning....VERY slowly.
Now, if only the UN had the stones to push beyond Basra, demolish every last remnant of his forces and remove Mr Hussein during Gulf War 1, we might be in a better situation now. Who knows.
Unfortunately, you can press the Arab League and the African Union all you want. All they will ever do is make noise. It is far easier to step back and then blame the West for the result of their own apathy (at best) towards the plight of their fellow States.
I'm not saying that '"West is Good - Africa/Middle East Bad", far from it. But they will happily sit back and watch their neighbours rip each other (or themselves) to peices.
Regarding Air Operations in Libya, DD is absolutely correct in how he describes a 'No Fly Zone' by itself as being inept. Also the rules of engagement would appear to be far broader than what we had in the past - looks like the UN is learning....VERY slowly.
Now, if only the UN had the stones to push beyond Basra, demolish every last remnant of his forces and remove Mr Hussein during Gulf War 1, we might be in a better situation now. Who knows.
We've all know for a long time that the Arab League and the African Union are impotent debating chambers but instead of listening to their whinges our leaders should be telling them to step up to the plate and take responsibilities for their own member states.
I agree DD is right about the 'no fly zone'. He said "..its something that was dreamed up by politicians and the media who havent a clue how things work in the real world.." and I agree with him there too.
However the 'real world' he describes can only be an illusionary one, since our world is led by our politicians and their predilections in pursuit of their political ambitions.
Starting to get very uncomfortable for the rebels and everyone else. Hurtling about in pickup trucks with huge anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles and Katyusher rocket systems on the back. But as soon as they get shot at out in the open with soft vehicles all they can do is retreat.
I would support arming the rebels to help them protect the peeps and themselves but with what?
A decent anti-tank system maybe but weeks of training would be needed to become anything like competent.
I can see weapons specialist advisers being deployed, then what?
Starting to get very uncomfortable for the rebels and everyone else. Hurtling about in pickup trucks with huge anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles and Katyusher rocket systems on the back. But as soon as they get shot at out in the open with soft vehicles all they can do is retreat.
I would support arming the rebels to help them protect the peeps and themselves but with what?
A decent anti-tank system maybe but weeks of training would be needed to become anything like competent.
I can see weapons specialist advisers being deployed, then what?
In the early 1980s the west armed the Mujahideen when the Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan. Yes the Mujahideen eventually drove the Red Army out of the country but Afghanistan tore itself apart and gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. That meddling in the 1980s has been back and bitten us, big time.
We don't want a repeat of that sorry tale. We should leave the Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations to sort Libya out.
In the early 1980s the west armed the Mujahideen when the Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan. Yes the Mujahideen eventually drove the Red Army out of the country but Afghanistan tore itself apart and gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. That meddling in the 1980s has been back and bitten us, big time.
We don't want a repeat of that sorry tale. We should leave the Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations to sort Libya out.
Very well said
Agree with you Gronnuck - leave the Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations to sort Libya out
oldmarine
31-Mar-11, 00:00
Agree with you Gronnuck - leave the Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations to sort Libya out
In a previous post I made practically the same statement. I stand by my earlier comment.
In a previous post I made practically the same statement. I stand by my earlier comment.
Noticed that Oldmarine, but that was before your President started talking about arming the rebels, not happy with his way of thinking
Just heard the CIA are on the ground........helping :eek:
Just watching the BBC News, the News reader; "news is coming in of a rebel convoy attacked by coalition aircraft, the rebels had fired their guns into the air - and for some reason - the coalition aircraft attacked".. Uh? "for some reason?" now that is balanced reporting:roll:!
Turns out it was the rebels firing anti-aircraft rounds into the sky, Hmm, what are the aircraft supposed to do' 'oh that'll be those amateur rebels firing celebration rounds into the air' or 'Hmm if they are firing upwards, they ain't rebels it's Gadaffi's lot'..
I see the rebels are trying to use just ex-Gadafi military men in the front line - maybe trying to stop these things from occurring..
orkneycadian
02-Apr-11, 10:28
Time to get the hell out of there before it costs us any more. Still waiting for all these free tankers of oil to arrive as a "thank you" for all the help proffered so far. Anyone seen them?
I've been watching the events unfold in Libya with interest. The rebels haven't got a hope without further intervention. They are an undisciplined rabble where everyone is a general and no one is a soldier. They're even squabbling among themselves. There is no way they could be considered an 'Army', they haven't got a strategic thought between the lot of them.
Sadly I fear 'mission creep' and our politicians are going to do the unthinkable and commit coalition forces to further involvment.
We should extracate ourselves while we can and tell the Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations they have to sort the problem out.
............... We should leave the Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations to sort Libya out.
And what if they are incapable of doing so?
Can't think of many (any?) instances of them (Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations) being involved in such operations in the past. I know 'the west' doesn't have a perfect track record of sorting out these internal disputes but now that NATO has taken control and the UN is firmly behind the action, surely
there is greater reason for optimism?
orkneycadian
02-Apr-11, 11:25
Is that the same optimism we have for Afghanistan?
Is that the same optimism we have for Afghanistan?
As things stand at the moment, there is no comparison. Having said that, I would always hope to be optimistic of an eventual successful outcome in both countries. Why wouldn't you?
And what if they are incapable of doing so?Then that is their problem - between them the Arab nations have the wealth and if we are to believe their interpretation of Islam then they have the motivation to put their own house in order.
Can't think of many (any?) instances of them (Arab League, the African Union and the muslim nations) being involved in such operations in the past.The short answer is they haven't - but that isn't an excuse to abdicate their responsibilites.
I know 'the west' doesn't have a perfect track record of sorting out these internal disputes but now that NATO has taken control and the UN is firmly behind the action, surely there is greater reason for optimism?
No there isn't. Because without further intervention or 'mission creep' the Libyan rebels are only ever going to achieve a stalemate.
We cannot afford financially or morally to allow ourselves to do any more in Libya. We don't have the resources to put boots on the ground and we don't have the pilots to fly the aircraft in a prolonged air campaign. They'll soon run out of targets anyway. The Muslim nations are already questioning the West's motives and the last thing we need right now is more enemies.
As things stand at the moment, there is no comparison. Having said that, I would always hope to be optimistic of an eventual successful outcome in both countries. Why wouldn't you?
The UN were optimistic enough to be in Mazar-i-Sharif reportedly one of the country's safest towns which was due to be handed over to Afghan Army control. The attack there is the deadliest against the UN in the country since the 2001 invasion.
Time we left Afghanistan to the Afghans .
Interesting article (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html) by Robert Grenier, :confused.
Then that is their problem - between them the Arab nations have the wealth and if we are to believe their interpretation of Islam then they have the motivation to put their own house in order.'
Time will tell.
'The short answer is they haven't - but that isn't an excuse to abdicate their responsibilites.'
If they don't have the expertise, perhaps it's better that they do abdicate their responsibilities.
'No there isn't. Because without further intervention or 'mission creep' the Libyan rebels are only ever going to achieve a stalemate.
We cannot afford financially or morally to allow ourselves to do any more in Libya.'
I agree with you about the finances but morally ....? I'm a great believer in ' No man is an island .........'
No man is an island .........'
It is sad but history has shown that while there is religion in the world and fanatic adherents to a faith, there will always be 'islands'
It is sad but history has shown that while there is religion in the world and fanatic adherents to a faith, there will always be 'islands'
Sorry, you have lost me. I don't see how religion and fanatics have anything to do with being 'involved in mankind' these days.
Where are the Arabs?
Interesting article (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html) by Robert Grenier, :confused.
Thanks for this very interesting link. He argues the case for greater Arab involvement whilst recognising the factors which make that difficult. It would be good to see a more up to date article from him as things have obviously moved on a bit since he penned this one.
Sorry, you have lost me. I don't see how religion and fanatics have anything to do with being 'involved in mankind' these days.
While I have a certain amount of sympathy for what is happening in Libya I cannot see how we as a country can do anything more to alleviate the situation there. Libya is an Arab nation with different religious views and different values primarily because it is a Muslim culture. The differences between the Muslim states and the West are irreconcilable. Recent history shows that whenever we 'try to help' in a Muslim country the Muslim world quickly resents that interference - hence the mess we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increased resentment among our own Muslim population. Libya is a Muslim problem and we should respect the Muslim world enough to allow it to find it's own solution.
Originally posted by Gronnuck
While I have a certain amount of sympathy for what is happening in Libya I cannot see how we as a country can do anything more to alleviate the situation there. Libya is an Arab nation with different religious views and different values primarily because it is a Muslim culture. The differences between the Muslim states and the West are irreconcilable. Recent history shows that whenever we 'try to help' in a Muslim country the Muslim world quickly resents that interference - hence the mess we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increased resentment among our own Muslim population. Libya is a Muslim problem and we should respect the Muslim world enough to allow it to find it's own solution.
I'm so pleased that the UN, Nato et al don't share your views.
I'm so pleased that the UN, Nato et al don't share your views.
Why would you say that? IMHO we have no need to be anywhere near Lybia, we are in enough trouble with Afghanistan, without pandering to America and their vendetta agains Gadhafi.
How much has this escapade cost the UK up to now? How much of the monies spent should have gone to support our lads in Afghanistan?
When I first posted this post just over a month ago I was concerned, now I am just plain worried, see how this has escalated in a month, already we are being accused by the so called "Rebels" of killing them. What next?
Why would you say that? IMHO we have no need to be anywhere near Lybia, we are in enough trouble with Afghanistan, without pandering to America and their vendetta agains Gadhafi.
At the risk of stating the obvious - it is my honest opinion.
How much of the monies spent should have gone to support our lads in Afghanistan?
Pleased that you are supportive of our forces in Afghanistan but struggle to understand how you can have such an opposing view of the Libyan's situation.
When I first posted this post just over a month ago I was concerned, now I am just plain worried, see how this has escalated in a month, already we are being accused by the so called "Rebels" of killing them. What next?
Yes, things have changed a lot in such a short time. It was never going to be easy.
I'm so pleased that the UN, Nato et al don't share your views.
The UN has a poor record when it comes to conflict resolution and humanitarian aid because the participating nations are less than united.
NATO has changed significantly from it's original role and has been steam-rollered into roles it was never intended for.
In any conflict there has to be an ultimate objective. So what is the objective in Libya? The main thrust of UN1973 is that it, "Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council".
No mention is made of the final objective. So it would appear that if the UN, Nato et al prevent further attacks on the civilian population they will have fulfilled their obligations regarding UN1973. So where does that leave Libya - hardly a resolution is it.
My point is that, at best, all the West is going to accomplish is a stalemate.
An interesting article (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201133111277476962.html) by Professor Mahmood Mandani
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.