|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
United States43959 Posts
On March 20 2011 05:44 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:35 red4ce wrote:
I really don't see why the USA has to be involved in this. One mistake does not warrant another. We're wasting enough lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should sit this one out and let the UK and France handle this. In order to fully impose a no-fly zone and the additional measures authorized by the UNSC resolution the United States has to be involved, the UK and France, even with the help of all the arab league don't have the resources to do it all by themselves. The UK is also quite heavily involved in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the US isn't the only country fighting a war at the moment.
On the contrary, the planes used to enforce the no fly zone are typhoons which are not used in Afghanistan. Additionally it is British bases that they are basing out of. Obviously the UK isn't doing this alone but equally there's no reason to play down the British involvement.
|
On March 20 2011 05:42 Mofisto wrote:Confirmation of tomahawk missile launch, and name of operation: Show nested quote +A US military chief says a total of 110 Tomahawk missiles have been launched against Libyan sites. He said the Coalition operation has been named Odyssey Dawn.
A very small thing, but I'm so glad that some uber-patriotic-diabetes name was NOT used for the first time in a decade.
|
On March 20 2011 05:44 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:35 red4ce wrote:
I really don't see why the USA has to be involved in this. One mistake does not warrant another. We're wasting enough lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should sit this one out and let the UK and France handle this. In order to fully impose a no-fly zone and the additional measures authorized by the UNSC resolution the United States has to be involved, the UK and France, even with the help of all the arab league don't have the resources to do it all by themselves. The UK is also quite heavily involved in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the US isn't the only country fighting a war at the moment.
Isn't Gadhafi's 'air force' complete trash? Shouldn't take anything more than a couple dozen fighter jets to render them completely useless.
|
On March 20 2011 05:55 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:44 jello_biafra wrote:On March 20 2011 05:35 red4ce wrote:
I really don't see why the USA has to be involved in this. One mistake does not warrant another. We're wasting enough lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should sit this one out and let the UK and France handle this. In order to fully impose a no-fly zone and the additional measures authorized by the UNSC resolution the United States has to be involved, the UK and France, even with the help of all the arab league don't have the resources to do it all by themselves. The UK is also quite heavily involved in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the US isn't the only country fighting a war at the moment. Isn't Gadhafi's 'air force' complete trash? Shouldn't take anything more than a couple dozen fighter jets to render them completely useless.
He probably has quite a few anti-air missile systems. Got to take those out before going after airbases and fighters.
|
On March 18 2011 02:49 FabledIntegral wrote:
PS. Concerning "respecting sovereignty" I had always been under the impression that a government can "lose it's right to rule over its people" depending on its actions. Or, at least, to be more clear, that that is an ideology widely supported by a very large percentage of the Western world. Although I'm a little more clear now that the UN Security Council is more focused on obtaining international peace and stability between countries.
This concept is referred to as R2P, responsibility to protect. It, essentially, is a foreign policy doctrine that holds that sovereignty only applies as long as the state is capable of protecting it's citizens from the worst of the worst. The moment a government isn't capable of this, a country essentially looses it sovereignty and the international community not only has a right to intervene, but has a resposibility to do so.
It's been used in the past to defend interventions in Yugoslavia for example.
|
On March 20 2011 05:55 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:44 jello_biafra wrote:On March 20 2011 05:35 red4ce wrote:
I really don't see why the USA has to be involved in this. One mistake does not warrant another. We're wasting enough lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should sit this one out and let the UK and France handle this. In order to fully impose a no-fly zone and the additional measures authorized by the UNSC resolution the United States has to be involved, the UK and France, even with the help of all the arab league don't have the resources to do it all by themselves. The UK is also quite heavily involved in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the US isn't the only country fighting a war at the moment. Isn't Gadhafi's 'air force' complete trash? Shouldn't take anything more than a couple dozen fighter jets to render them completely useless.
afaik, couple hundred planes and they are mostly really old caliber. And not to forget all the planes the "traitors" have from the actual number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Air_Force
|
"The Libyan [government] has been consistent in its inconsistency."
LOL
|
On March 20 2011 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:44 jello_biafra wrote:On March 20 2011 05:35 red4ce wrote:
I really don't see why the USA has to be involved in this. One mistake does not warrant another. We're wasting enough lives and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should sit this one out and let the UK and France handle this. In order to fully impose a no-fly zone and the additional measures authorized by the UNSC resolution the United States has to be involved, the UK and France, even with the help of all the arab league don't have the resources to do it all by themselves. The UK is also quite heavily involved in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the US isn't the only country fighting a war at the moment. On the contrary, the planes used to enforce the no fly zone are typhoons which are not used in Afghanistan. Additionally it is British bases that they are basing out of. Obviously the UK isn't doing this alone but equally there's no reason to play down the British involvement.
I'm not playing it down at all, I'm simply stating facts (albeit regurgitated from some Oxbridge professor I saw on BBC news the other night). The UK has the second best airforce in NATO and has greater capabilities than all but the US, but we don't have enough to lockdown the ENTIRE of Libya and bomb all Libyan forces if necessary even with the help of the French (who have an excellent airforce as well). I'm also pleased that Britain and France got the ball rolling on this whole thing and are willing to do what it takes.
Btw seventeen and a half thousand people on TL right now, some kind of record I think? :O
On March 20 2011 05:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I find it hard to believe lol.
|
Libyan TV reporting a French plane shot down by anti air defence systems.
|
On March 20 2011 05:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
still no confirmation though.
Libyan state tv:
Libyan state TV: "Crusader enemies" are bombarding civilian targets in Benghazi, Zuwarah and Misrata.
|
On March 20 2011 06:02 Aurocaido wrote:
Libyan TV reporting a French plane shot down by anti air defence systems.
Probably just shot down a cruise-missile and thought it was a plane.
Not really reliable source tbh. And it would be stupid to fly over tripoli right know.
|
Just posting what is being televised.
|
I find it odd that during the press conference that the speaker said Crusaders and Al-Qaeda were attacking Libya. Who honestly would believe that. Strange bed fellows to say the least.
|
On March 20 2011 05:48 Aurocaido wrote:
Exactly which is why it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. To assume that claims are substantiated and fully truthful because of the internation prestige of news source is folly.
Libya is the 10th? (correct me if I am wrong) producer of oil in the world. Not only that it required minimal refinment and is a very high quality crude. Hardly a minimal amount.
Then it needs be checked like every news, not with particular skepticism.
Libyan oil was already going to Europe and can be replaced for some time by reserves, there are little benefits in supporting an insurrection. It is true that they don't want to be replaced by Indian and Chinese companies; but it's only one factor among other, as they could've achieved this without having to support the rebels.
|
Four AJE Staff have been detained in Western Libya.
|
On March 20 2011 05:48 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:44 Kukaracha wrote:On March 20 2011 05:37 Aurocaido wrote:
The status of a media outlet does not determine whether their reports are substantiated or not.
Edit: Please keep your pretentious 'thankyous' to yourself. There aren't many other sources for our medias. There are only 5 press agencies all over the world; just wanted to point that out. On March 20 2011 05:39 asmgrad wrote:
I hope you all understand that only reason west is doing this is oil, right? All wars in history started cause of need for resources.
My country ,Serbia received same treatment in 99's cause of Kosovo, USA wanted to get near Russia, they offered same ultimatum... And, again, no it's not about the oil, oil production in Libya is minimal in comparison to other sources. There are many other factors but you could find them by yourself with a quick google search. Exactly which is why it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. To assume that claims are substantiated and fully truthful because of the internation prestige of news source is folly. Libya is the 10th? (correct me if I am wrong) producer of oil in the world. Not only that it required minimal refinment and is a very high quality crude. Hardly a minimal amount.
Those who say this is not really about oil are diluting themselves. Once the French/EU guys said "bad bad Gadaffi" step down etc etc they cut their ties with him, even tho he gave them tons of oil... Once the EU guys saw that Gadaffi was actually going to win and rebels were going to lose, they went into a panic mode. Libya supplies a lot of oil to the EU, especially Italy/France and, Libya's oil is some of the best in the world, it's high grade stuff, if I recall correctly, it takes 6 barrels of normal crude to equate one from Libya, it's that good.
The EU guys knew that if they didn't step in to help the rebels Gadaffi would cut the supply and take it somewhere else.
As for the U.N. intervention into this conflict, I really don't know. They should be there to protect and over watch the citizens from getting hurt but getting involved into the conflict is not their right. It's hard to tell how many people are loyal to the rebels and how many to Gadaffi, maybe it's a 50/50 split between the two groups, who knows. At least with the U.N. there Gadaffi won't be killing citizens anytime soon.
|
Matiga Airbase in Tripoli, where the Gaddafi AF were based as well as bringing in Mercenaries hit by US missiles via AJA #Libya #Feb17
|
On March 20 2011 06:11 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 05:48 Aurocaido wrote:On March 20 2011 05:44 Kukaracha wrote:On March 20 2011 05:37 Aurocaido wrote:
The status of a media outlet does not determine whether their reports are substantiated or not.
Edit: Please keep your pretentious 'thankyous' to yourself. There aren't many other sources for our medias. There are only 5 press agencies all over the world; just wanted to point that out. On March 20 2011 05:39 asmgrad wrote:
I hope you all understand that only reason west is doing this is oil, right? All wars in history started cause of need for resources.
My country ,Serbia received same treatment in 99's cause of Kosovo, USA wanted to get near Russia, they offered same ultimatum... And, again, no it's not about the oil, oil production in Libya is minimal in comparison to other sources. There are many other factors but you could find them by yourself with a quick google search. Exactly which is why it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. To assume that claims are substantiated and fully truthful because of the internation prestige of news source is folly. Libya is the 10th? (correct me if I am wrong) producer of oil in the world. Not only that it required minimal refinment and is a very high quality crude. Hardly a minimal amount. Those who say this is not really about oil are diluting themselves. Once the French/EU guys said "bad bad Gadaffi" step down etc etc they cut their ties with him, even tho he gave them tons of oil... Once the EU guys saw that Gadaffi was actually going to win and rebels were going to lose, they went into a panic mode. Libya supplies a lot of oil to the EU, especially Italy/France and, Libya's oil is some of the best in the world, it's high grade stuff, if I recall correctly, it takes 6 barrels of normal crude to equate one from Libya, it's that good. The EU guys knew that if they didn't step in to help the rebels Gadaffi would cut the supply and take it somewhere else. As for the U.N. intervention into this conflict, I really don't know. They should be there to protect and over watch the citizens from getting hurt but getting involved into the conflict is not their right. It's hard to tell how many people are loyal to the rebels and how many to Gadaffi, maybe it's a 50/50 split between the two groups, who knows. At least with the U.N. there Gadaffi won't be killing citizens anytime soon.
Just listen to David Cameron's speech. His last 3 words was all that was needed.
" Qaddafi horrible baddie, troops are selfless, this is a just and righteous war, oh and its in Britain;s best interest."
|
On March 20 2011 06:04 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 06:02 Aurocaido wrote:
Libyan TV reporting a French plane shot down by anti air defence systems. Probably just shot down a cruise-missile and thought it was a plane. Not really reliable source tbh. And it would be stupid to fly over tripoli right know.
French TV channels report all French planes involved in operations have returned safely.
|
On March 20 2011 06:11 BeJe77 wrote:
Once the French/EU guys said "bad bad Gadaffi" step down etc etc they cut their ties with him, even tho he gave them tons of oil...
They could've condemned his actions while still supporting him. I think the true breaking point was when they saw that the conflict was going to last and end very badly, and that it was a better idea to keep the area under western control. They probably lost faith in Ghadaffi's authority and capacity to mantain the statu quo, not the other way around. And the french government needed to make sure he didn't lose all influence on North-Africa; Mubarak and Ben Ali gone were already bad news.
Oil isn't the motive, it's a factor. Libya is also a strategic point for immigration and regional influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
