|
Libya's anti-air capabilities were old the last time the US bombed Libya.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Indi86 posted:If they go in, they'll hit their targets. The bigger problem will be the still-hostile air space. Oh believe me, that is not a problem. US and European jets and the air-to-air missiles carried by them far outrate the Libyan arsenal, Libyan SAMs are outdated and if there is a target that is really dangerous to approach, it can be destroyed with cruise missiles. And the area around Benghazi likely has no permanent SAM installations in government hands, so the most important region is safe for operations. The biggest issue will be to recognize the ground targets. A Libyan army technical or T-55 looks surprisingly similar to a rebel technical or T-55 from up above... Cartouche posted:Thank goodness he is telling Gaddafi exactly what we are not going to do. Democratic governments tend to be responsible to their people, and therefore should keep them informed of their intentions. This reduces the chances for bluff, but also makes their words count for more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Are the reports of 50km away from Benghazi false? Hearing both ways right now. Hope they have a little more time. Maybe France can run bomb some poo poo right quick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Rkelly posted:Are the reports of 50km away from Benghazi false? Hearing both ways right now. Hope they have a little more time. Maybe France can run bomb some poo poo right quick. In less than an hour? Assuming they're travelling at 30mph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:In less than an hour? Assuming they're travelling at 30mph. CNN said France's jets were 1 hour to 1 and 1/2 hours away at anytime. Sarkozy is most likely just posturing mostly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:One could very easily argue that the Libyan rebels are a national group? Try the Geneva accords instead of dictionary.com as they are what matters in this case
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:If Misrata is anything to go by his plan is to pound the poo poo out of Benghazi and kill as many people as possible. If he tried to kill as many people as possible he could have just burned to city to the ground. What he is doing is cutting off supplies, water, electricity and communications and terrorizing the inhabitants with indiscriminate killings and destruction. When the city is in it's last breaths he just waltzes in, though it seems he tried that a few days too early with the last attempt. Killing people really isn't his goal it's just that a few thousand deaths simply mean nothing to him. He has to move his troops into position around Benghazi (and probably Tobruk) quickly now though, if the UN coalition is indeed serious about stopping movement of troops towards rebel held cities. That might play into the rebels hands somehow or it might end up disastrous if they get split up and isolated in various smaller pockets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
bringer posted:Oh, so the Libyan tribes aren't racially distinct enough to classify this as genocide? The resolution is UN sanctioned regime change. A No Fly Zone is one thing, but the resolution went past that to pretty much telling CQ he's not getting his cities back. If the UN are able to force a stalemate though, getting peeps to the table and establishing peacekeeping operations is an option
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
I'd like to think the eastern cities have had time and space to become a lot better fortified than Misrata and any further attacks will not now manage to get air support. And this foreign minister needs a bomb up his lying rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
Rkelly posted:CNN said France's jets were 1 hour to 1 and 1/2 hours away at anytime. France isn't that far away from Libya, especially when there's open water and no speed limit. Jut posted:establishing peacekeeping operations is an option Didn't the resolution specifically prohibit foreign occupation? Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
Jut posted:If the UN are able to force a stalemate though, getting peeps to the table and establishing peacekeeping operations is an option Can the UN and the international community really accept some sort of even agreement and talks with Gaddafi? They've accused him of crimes against humanity. It's not like they can just hold fair talks with someone they've already condemned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
It is very unlikely to happen, but there's nothing stopping them. Sudan is precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
It looks like pro-government forces are actually going after Benghazi. There isn't a  big enough.Why do it? What can he possible achieve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
RunningOnEmpty posted:It looks like pro-government forces are actually going after Benghazi. There isn't a It will take a large portion of those opposing his rule hostage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Loud explosion and anti-aircraft fire heard in Libyan city of Benghazi. -AFP
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Jut posted:If the rebels are NOT civilians and have their own standing army, then surely they should not be using civilian centers as their base of operation and hiding behind civilians. Gaddafi was attacking the protesters before there was a hint of a National Transitional Council. Do you somehow think all the civilian casualties and attacks on the cities that have gone over to the rebels are just collateral damage? This is textbook collective punishment and it is right that the UN is stepping in to stop it. This does not mean they will assist the NTC with taking Tripoli by force, the way the USA did in Afghanistan 2001. It means they will prevent Gaddafi's forces from continuing their attacks on civilian centres. How do you keep missing this point? Gaddafi STARTED by attacking unarmed protesters, it's not a loving accident. For that matter, where did you come up with standing army from anything I've said? Earlier I laid out what the Third Geneva Convention requires from a militia, which the Libyans have followed. A militia is not a standing army. A transitional council is not a standing army. A standing army is something you raise during peacetime, not draft in an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:It will take a large portion of those opposing his rule hostage. Pretty much. And what are we prepared to do in response?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Pretty much. And what are we prepared to do in response? Let me shake the Obama administration 8 ball.... "Strongly Condemn"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Pretty much. And what are we prepared to do in response? TRADE SANCTIONS!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Let me shake the Obama administration 8 ball.... I literally just saw that on Al Jazeera after I read it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:I literally just saw that on Al Jazeera after I read it. Will everyone just let him be clear? drat. Man's trying to talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Mine said "military force" but I don't have time to get an accompanying graphic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
You do realize saying anything other than strongly condemn opens up the possibility for it to be spun as America inciting attacks right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Yemen is a tragic case, because Obama and other Western leaders will probably not condemn what the government is doing to it's own people, because they're allowing him to wage war against "terror cells" there. U.S. Navy base presence in Bahrain also presents the same "constraints". Pedrophile posted:You do realize saying anything other than strongly condemn opens up the possibility for it to be spun as America inciting attacks right? It's unfortunately more clear cut than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Perhaps you could help me understand the connection between your recent comment stating Obama will not condemn what the government in Yemen is doing and the recent image quoting Obama as strongly condemning what the government in Yemen is doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Anyone got a GIF of the dancing that guy was doing on top of the tank? Criss-crossing his hands?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
farraday posted:Perhaps you could help me understand the connection between your recent comment sating Obama will not condemn what the government in Yemen is doing and the recent image quoting Obama as strongly condemning what the government in Yemen is doing. He's condemning the violence, he's not condemning the President, and he hasn't gone as far as to say he has to go, the last line in that statement is an absolute laugh. Obama isn't going to get slack on this, there's a lot of bullshit going on with regards to how he's been treating the region.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:U.S. Navy base presence in Bahrain also presents the same "constraints". Yeah, the 5th Fleet being there means the US will allow pretty much anything as long as they can keep their naval base. That is a major jumping off point for any military operation in the area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Yeah, the 5th Fleet being there means the US will allow pretty much anything as long as they can keep their naval base. That is a major jumping off point for any military operation in the area. It would look quite bad if foreign stationed force began attacking the country it resides in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
quote:Libyan Spokesman giving live conference now. So far he has said: What a loving piece of poo poo, I hope a nice French bomb finds it way to his doorstep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:He's condemning the violence, he's not condemning the President, and he hasn't gone as far as to say he has to go, the last line in that statement is an absolute laugh. So when you said "he will not condemn what the government in Yemen is doing to it's own people" what you meant was "he will not call for the president to be removed"? Just to make it clear since you're equivocating madly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:It would look quite bad if foreign stationed force began attacking the country it resides in. I think he means, President Obama will give a pass to the Bahrain Monarchy to control the situation as they see fit. Of course, there is a possibility, that it's a "one country at a time" policy, where right now it's Libya, as it was Egypt and so on. Perhaps once Gaddafi is gone and the civil war can end, he will turn attention to the Gulf states, but I remain doubtful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
So they did capture the NYT journalists, glad they're being freed though. quote:NEW YORK — Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi have said they will release four New York Times journalists who were captured during fighting in the eastern part of the country, the newspaper said Friday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
farraday posted:So when you said "he will not condemn what the government in Yemen is doing to it's own people" what you meant was "he will not call for the president to be removed"? President, administration, government. Sorry to use multiple words that mean different things. The President is the one calling the shots in Yemen, I just used government to refer to administration. Please don't play word games. So yeah, President of Yemen should step down, it's what people want, he's not stepping down, and has begun massacring his people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I think he means, President Obama will give a pass to the Bahrain Monarchy to control the situation as they see fit. Of course, there is a possibility, that it's a "one country at a time" policy, where right now it's Libya, as it was Egypt and so on. Perhaps once Gaddafi is gone and the civil war can end, he will turn attention to the Gulf states, but I remain doubtful. It is a very precarious situation, it is important to pay attention to the subtleties of what is happening on a global scale. A leader's words can carry a heavy weight. While saying that you condemn violence seems like it doesn't do much, you have to realize that in essence that nation is recognizing what is actually happening on a global scale. Edit: yeah should probably state that I am referring to Obama
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I think he means, President Obama will give a pass to the Bahrain Monarchy to control the situation as they see fit. Of course, there is a possibility, that it's a "one country at a time" policy, where right now it's Libya, as it was Egypt and so on. Perhaps once Gaddafi is gone and the civil war can end, he will turn attention to the Gulf states, but I remain doubtful. That is what I am saying. I would even say it is more than giving them a pass. The Obama administration is probably encouraging the Bahrain Monarchy to put down the protests as quickly as possible to bring stability back to the country. If the protesters were successful in Bahrain, we would very likely not be able to keep the base there. That would mean losing a lot of our ability to have any power over the region at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Sounds like the NFZ will take effect soon:quote:Appearing on CNN just now, the US's UN ambassador Susan Rice said Gaddafi's forces were in violation of the UN Security Council resolution through their advance upon Benghazi, and warned of "swift and sure consequences including military action".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
We've been waiting what seems like forever for the UN resolution, and now 24 hours later with all that time to prepare, we're still seeing Gadaffi shelling the poo poo out of urban areas. I call self-righteous bullshit on the French and the British. Ok, for that useless dumbfuck Sarkozy it's an election year. But what's the agenda of the brits? Too much media coverage for that royal brat? P.S.: NATO forces need at least another week to prepare, which means they can as well go home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
Thunderstorm posted:We've been waiting what seems like forever for the UN resolution, and now 24 hours later with all that time to prepare, we're still seeing Gadaffi shelling the poo poo out of urban areas. I call self-righteous bullshit on the French and the British. France said they didn't want a NATO intervention. We have reports of pro-Kadhafi troops bombing cities, but we also have declarations from Kadhafi's goverment declaring a cease-fire. The West can't afford to attack Kadhafi's forces if they have indeed stopped their attack (and if they haven't, we need reliable proof to be legally covered).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Thunderstorm posted:We've been waiting what seems like forever for the UN resolution, and now 24 hours later with all that time to prepare, we're still seeing Gadaffi shelling the poo poo out of urban areas. I call self-righteous bullshit on the French and the British. They're probably just ironing out the fine details, or waiting for confirmation from their won sources (maybe the AWACS?) that Gaddafi is actually attacking civilians. As broad as the UN resolution is, there are still limits to what they can and can't do, I'd imagine they'd want to be 100% sure they're attacking the right target before sending heir planes in. e: Besides, even if something did happen, neither side would rush to announce it until they double-checked everything, then sent it through their PR department. Narmi fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 00:06
|
|
