|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On March 19 2011 18:48 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 18:36 zalz wrote:
If Gaddafi can get his forces into Benghazi before the UN can repel them then the rebels are fucked.
Air strikes are utterly useless in an urban landscape, let alone the press if they start bombing Benghazi themselves. All armies need resupply. UN airstrikes could hit the inevitable supply train that will be, well, supplying Gadaffi's offensive. But yeah, if they take the city before the UN steps in...that's not good news. Does anyone know if the UN resolution allows for the supply of Libyan insurgents with weapons? I know it allows for airstrikes as well as no-fly, but I don't know about this. If so, the UN could simply drop in a couple hundred rocket launchers and let the situation take care of itself in a short manner. Tanks don't do so well in urban environments against modern AT weaponry.
They can't, the UN supports the civilians not the rebels it isn't allowed to sell / give weapons to neither the rebels and gadaffi.
|
What the hell is this, oil minister rambling/threatning oil companies that they'll sell their oil to the east in stead?
He's talking like nothing is happening..
For your morning slackers:
An official of some kid held a press conference where he read up letters sent to various leaders, telling the leaders to fuck off
And now Foreign minister holding a new conference
|
IT is happening today, guys. In an hour after the meeting the bombs towards Gaddafi start falling down.
|
1154: Libyan rebels have acknowledged the plane which crashed in flames in Benghazi early on Saturday belonged to them and it was shot down by Col Gaddafi's forces.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418
Rebels violating the no fly zone... interesting. Does this mean the UN will bomb them?
|
On March 19 2011 19:53 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 18:48 acker wrote:On March 19 2011 18:36 zalz wrote:
If Gaddafi can get his forces into Benghazi before the UN can repel them then the rebels are fucked.
Air strikes are utterly useless in an urban landscape, let alone the press if they start bombing Benghazi themselves. All armies need resupply. UN airstrikes could hit the inevitable supply train that will be, well, supplying Gadaffi's offensive. But yeah, if they take the city before the UN steps in...that's not good news. Does anyone know if the UN resolution allows for the supply of Libyan insurgents with weapons? I know it allows for airstrikes as well as no-fly, but I don't know about this. If so, the UN could simply drop in a couple hundred rocket launchers and let the situation take care of itself in a short manner. Tanks don't do so well in urban environments against modern AT weaponry. They can't, the UN supports the civilians not the rebels it isn't allowed to sell / give weapons to neither the rebels and gadaffi.
Good thing it's not the UN, but NATO we're talking about.
God, people, NATO =/= UN
|
Gadaffi has apparently sent a series of letters to world leaders, claiming that the UN intervention was illegal
The 68-year old told President Barack Obama that his forces were battling al-Qaeda within Libya.
A spokesman read out the letter at a press conference in Tripoli.
"Our son, the president of US," the letter to the US leader said. "I have said to you before that even if Libya and US enter into a war, God forbid. I have all love for you as a son.
"I have all Libyan people with me, and I am prepared to die and they are prepared to die with me. We are confronting al Qaeda and nothing more.
"What would you do if you found them controling American cities with the force of weapons."
A separate letter was send to President Nicolas Sarkozy, Prime Minister David Cameron and Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General.
It said: "Libya is not yours the resolutions of the UN are invalid. This is injustice it is a clear agression. You have no right to interfere in our internal affairs."
He denied his forces were attack civilians, the reason why the UN passed a resolution backing air strikes in Libya.
He said: "We would never fire one bullet against our people."
|
On March 19 2011 11:56 Aurocaido wrote:
I have been watching Al Jazeera almost nonstop since the Earthquake in Japan. The news I have seen on Libya has been all claims made by the newscasters that was not coroberated. Maybe I have just missed those news broadcasts that coroberate those stories, I will keep watching. And the source you provided was reporting on bombers attacking a munitions depot, not civilian targets.
I've been watching Le Monde, The New York Times, the Guardian and Al Jazeera non stop since the begining of these events (17th of february). I can't really easily dig the pages from before march but trust me, original reports were more along the lines of unarmed civilians being shot at, and then armed rebels and civilians shot at indifferently.
However, I admit that I'm too lazy to back it up with sources right now.
|
On March 19 2011 21:36 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 19:53 RvB wrote:On March 19 2011 18:48 acker wrote:On March 19 2011 18:36 zalz wrote:
If Gaddafi can get his forces into Benghazi before the UN can repel them then the rebels are fucked.
Air strikes are utterly useless in an urban landscape, let alone the press if they start bombing Benghazi themselves. All armies need resupply. UN airstrikes could hit the inevitable supply train that will be, well, supplying Gadaffi's offensive. But yeah, if they take the city before the UN steps in...that's not good news. Does anyone know if the UN resolution allows for the supply of Libyan insurgents with weapons? I know it allows for airstrikes as well as no-fly, but I don't know about this. If so, the UN could simply drop in a couple hundred rocket launchers and let the situation take care of itself in a short manner. Tanks don't do so well in urban environments against modern AT weaponry. They can't, the UN supports the civilians not the rebels it isn't allowed to sell / give weapons to neither the rebels and gadaffi. Good thing it's not the UN, but NATO we're talking about. God, people, NATO =/= UN
No its not only the NATO.
Its an Un Resolution and therefore other countries agreed to it and will probably take a part in it than NATO countries.
|
Norway to provide 6 F-16's
Norway will contribute six F-16 warplanes to an international military operation to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, Jens Stoltenberg, the country's Prime Minister, has confirmed.
"Norway is prepared to send six F-16 airplanes to a military action in Libya. The planes can be in place within a few days," Stoltenberg told reporters in Paris, where he is attending the summit on Libya hosted by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.
"Norway will take its responsibility. We want to contribute to the resolution being carried out."
|
On March 19 2011 22:26 Mofisto wrote:Norway to provide 6 F-16's Show nested quote + Norway will contribute six F-16 warplanes to an international military operation to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, Jens Stoltenberg, the country's Prime Minister, has confirmed.
"Norway is prepared to send six F-16 airplanes to a military action in Libya. The planes can be in place within a few days," Stoltenberg told reporters in Paris, where he is attending the summit on Libya hosted by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.
"Norway will take its responsibility. We want to contribute to the resolution being carried out."
Mhm, 10% of our F-16's then.
|
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On March 19 2011 21:27 Disquiet wrote:1154: Libyan rebels have acknowledged the plane which crashed in flames in Benghazi early on Saturday belonged to them and it was shot down by Col Gaddafi's forces. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418Rebels violating the no fly zone... interesting. Does this mean the UN will bomb them?
I wonder the same. Who is going to be bombed by the UN?
|
Translating from an Austrian news site:
14:14: According to the governmental Libyan news agency Jana, people are gathering in places which could be targets of French airstrikes.
Does this mean Gaddafi is herding civilians around targets as meat shields so they can't be bombed?
|
To all thinking there will only be a no-fly zone imposed, you are so naive! What do you think a no-fly zone can achieve? In matter of days or a week the libyan army will crush the rebels even without air strikes.
Which means that now when we're in deep shit, because France/England can't allow Gaddafi to stay in power or they will lose a lot of money, and we need to go all-in in a war against Libya. And war's aren't starcraft, war means misery, destruction and death. I hope none of you get to live through a war.
Why are we going into a war? To help rebels who fight for freedom? Libya isn't North Korea, while it may not be democratic it certainly has many freedoms (citizens are allowed to leave the country, you can find many products just like in the west, it is capitalism, there is mass media etc).
Today i had a talk with an uncle who worked in Libya for 6 years (oil industry) until 6 months ago. He told me the public opinion in Libya is not as western media portrays it and people are neither with Gadafi (they don't really love him) but neither against, they are quite satisfied with their evolution (and Libya did develop very good in the last 10 years) and they have decent standards of living. That adds to my skepticism of how many people want to revolt and that this foreign threat will only bring more people to Gaddafi's side.
The more one-sided informed people i see around the more my skepticism grows regarding this. As you can even see in the thread, we like only one part of the truth, most of our info comes from twitter (from the rebels) and western media (which also takes it from twitter i believe and has other agenda's) and we just eat it up without questioning it, without even judging it.
|
On March 19 2011 23:00 Scorch wrote:Translating from an Austrian news site: Show nested quote +14:14: According to the governmental Libyan news agency Jana, people are gathering in places which could be targets of French airstrikes. Does this mean Gaddafi is herding civilians around targets as meat shields so they can't be bombed?
How about if people are doing this by their own will? Could you ever comprehend that?
|
French airforces been seen flying over Libya. Says AFP.
|
On March 19 2011 23:12 Pika Chu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 23:00 Scorch wrote:Translating from an Austrian news site: 14:14: According to the governmental Libyan news agency Jana, people are gathering in places which could be targets of French airstrikes. Does this mean Gaddafi is herding civilians around targets as meat shields so they can't be bombed? How about if people are doing this by their own will? Could you ever comprehend that?
Please watch your tone, I was only asking an honest question. Why would people gather around likely targets? If I expected a place to be bombed shortly, I'd get the hell out of there. Do you think Gaddafi's followers are so loyal to him that they would protect anti-air facilities and the like with their lives in such a manner?
|
Sarkozy declared the war against the gaddafi and his troops.
Source: Dutch news interruption
|
Sarkozy just did a short speech. Basically saying that militairy action is allowed now, after ghadaffi forces breaking the ceizefire in the last hours. Reporters are saying that this allows the fighters to attack the tanks and artillery from ghadaffi forces too.
+ Show Spoiler +He also mentioned that forcefields were OP. Distasteful joke on my part, I'm aware of that.
Source is Al jazeera.
|
Sarkozy has nothing to lose. Only 30% approval rating. He is going for a double or nothing.
Gaddafi should have bought our planes lol.
|
On March 19 2011 23:26 Scorch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 23:12 Pika Chu wrote:On March 19 2011 23:00 Scorch wrote:Translating from an Austrian news site: 14:14: According to the governmental Libyan news agency Jana, people are gathering in places which could be targets of French airstrikes. Does this mean Gaddafi is herding civilians around targets as meat shields so they can't be bombed? How about if people are doing this by their own will? Could you ever comprehend that? Please watch your tone, I was only asking an honest question. Why would people gather around likely targets? If I expected a place to be bombed shortly, I'd get the hell out of there. Do you think Gaddafi's followers are so loyal to him that they would protect anti-air facilities and the like with their lives in such a manner?
Sorry but your tone was just as bad as mine, very biased and really offending for libyans.
I don't think they are loyal to Gaddafi but they may be loyal to Libya and will defend their country against foreign aggression.
Second, i doubt the libyan army has the anti-air facilities in the middle of the city where people could gather, they must be talking of some other kind of targets.
Do you remember the war in Serbia? When NATO attacked Serbia to "free" them from the dictator Milosevic? If you don't please google but i'm going to tell you. Not only did even those against Milosevic started to support him, just because they support their country but hundreds of thousands of people in Belgrad and other cities gathered out in the middle of the city, they organized concerts and what not, right during the NATO bombardments. You need to see things from a different paradigm to understand that. It may be against the individual spirit of conservation but it looks like sometimes humans are capable of that. And i'm sure they didn't do it out of love for Milosevic or the regime.
Romanians hated Ceausescu during the late 80's, Libya is a paradise compared to what Romania was back then... not only your freedoms were small but there was few food, few electricity, warm water and such. When the army was given orders to shoot at protesters, some did, some shoot in the air (over 90% of romanians wanted to change the regime). We attacked tanks with flowers (literally, we threw flowers at the tanks threatening us and we threw flowers at soldiers who were shooting). However, i do believe that no matter the hate towards the regime and ceausescu, if we had any foreign threats coming we'd leave feelings behind and support our country against it (no matter who rules us).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
