dune Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 Why do the French have it in for Libya? Although Libya was an Italian posession the French were a major colonial power in North Africa and to this day they have good intelligence of the region and under president Sarkozy we have a right wing leader who is ready to bring the French millitary back into the fold and restore some pride for his country. Also France aren't tied up in other parts of the world so they have the hardware to do this. Also France is close to Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 Dune, I find your current avatar insulting to the blessed Red & White stripes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 Libyans are claiming they've brought down a French jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 Dune, I find your current avatar insulting to the blessed Red & White stripes. I'm glad you don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 I'm glad you don't like it. Are you also glad we are blasting the 'fuzzies' to hell ? ( Taking your Cecil Rhodes quote into account ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 Are you also glad we are blasting the 'fuzzies' to hell ? ( Taking your Cecil Rhodes quote into account ). I am particularly pleased that Britain, France and the Lebanon won out at the UN. It should make all of us feel very proud to finally have a prime minister that isn't a poodle. Obama has really shot himself in the foot here and this will ensure he'll be out at the next presidential election thank god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 I am particularly pleased that Britain, France and the Lebanon won out at the UN. It should make all of us feel very proud to finally have a prime minister that isn't a poodle. Obama has really shot himself in the foot here and this will ensure he'll be out at the next presidential election thank god. Will he also stand up for the people of Bahrain ? Or intervene in Yemen ? Or threaten to impose a no fly zone over Tibet ? It's his chance to play 'Billy Big ********'; all Prime Ministers wish for their 'moment', and Gaddafi set himself up as the Aunt Sally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 Will he also stand up for the people of Bahrain ? Or intervene in Yemen ? Or threaten to impose a no fly zone over Tibet ? It's his chance to play 'Billy Big ********'; all Prime Ministers wish for their 'moment', and Gaddafi set himself up as the Aunt Sally. I'm just making the point that it's good to have a Conservative prime minister that isn't the pet poodle of the Americans. In fact David Cameron even went as far as to make a unsubtle dig directed towards Obama just prior to our sucess at the UN. This would never have happened during the dark years under Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 I am particularly pleased that Britain, France and the Lebanon won out at the UN. It should make all of us feel very proud to finally have a prime minister that isn't a poodle. Obama has really shot himself in the foot here and this will ensure he'll be out at the next presidential election thank god. I'm just making the point that it's good to have a Conservative prime minister that isn't the pet poodle of the Americans. In fact David Cameron even went as far as to make a unsubtle dig directed towards Obama just prior to our sucess at the UN. This would never have happened during the dark years under Labour. Nope. The yanks "stayed" out of the UN resolution because they knew full well that if they were seen to be backing it, in the light of the Iraq fiasco, it would never get through. They "came on board" at the last possible moment so that it could go through. All the apparent hesitatation and prevarication was pre-planned. Obama and Cameron played their cards very close to the chest, and pretty well imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 19 March, 2011 Share Posted 19 March, 2011 I am particularly pleased that Britain, France and the Lebanon won out at the UN. It should make all of us feel very proud to finally have a prime minister that isn't a poodle. Obama has really shot himself in the foot here and this will ensure he'll be out at the next presidential election thank god. Dune really is incredibly strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Ta Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Nope. The yanks "stayed" out of the UN resolution because they knew full well that if they were seen to be backing it, in the light of the Iraq fiasco, it would never get through. They "came on board" at the last possible moment so that it could go through. All the apparent hesitatation and prevarication was pre-planned. Obama and Cameron played their cards very close to the chest, and pretty well imho. Don't be so silly. They just happened to have their subs in situ and have all the logistical necessities available in the area at the time. I think it was more a case of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 I am a tad confused here, I thought dune liked that Libian dictator - well he said he did a few days ago. Also he made me laugh when he said your P.M. was not the poodle of the U.S.A. of course he is just like the U.S.A. is under the control of Israel :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 On March 18, Washington bullied Security Council members to approve Resolution 1973, a measure authorizing war on Libya. The 10 - 0 vote included five abstentions from China, Russia, Germany, Brazil and India, objecting to sweeping terms, including wide latitude for belligerence on bogus "humanitarian" grounds. In fact, it's to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, privatize its state industries under Western control, establish new US bases, use them for greater regional control, and perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq. A same day White House press release headlined, "Readout of President Obama's Calls with (UK) Prime Minister Cameron and (French) President Sarkozy," saying: "The leaders agreed that Libya must immediately comply with all terms of the resolution and that violence against the civilian population of Libya must cease." Obama also ordered Gaddafi to implement an immediate ceasefire or face military intervention, saying terms were non-negotiable. The resolution authorizes "all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack," including a no-fly zone and illegal air strikes. On March 18, Reuters headlined, "US Pushing for Air Strikes, No-Fly Zone in Libya," saying: Washington urges "air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery." AP reported that an unnamed British MP said UK "forces were on stand by for air strikes and could be mobilized as soon as" March 17. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said his country will join Britain and Washington in launching attacks. Doing so will be illegal aggression, America's speciality, currently waging illegal wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus proxy regional ones. The latest involves Saudi troops, at Obama's behest, invading Bahrain guns blazing, murdering civilians, arresting opposition leaders and activists, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, occupying the country, and instituting police state control. For his part, Gaddafi responded to belligerence. He didn't instigate it. International law supports him. A previous article explained. Nonetheless, Resolution 1973 authorizes "shock and awe," entailing mass destruction and "collateral damage," assuring heavy civilian casualties. Perhaps outsmarting the West, Libya's Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa [Musa Kusa] announced an "immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations," knowing NATO's alternative without it. In response, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said, "We will judge him by his actions, not his words." Addressing the House of Commons, he said Britain will deploy warplanes, "air-to-air refueling, and surveillance aircraft" over Libyan airspace, violating its territory. "Preparations....have already started, and in the coming hours they will move to airbases from where they can take the necessary action," he added. France, Britain, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will attend a Saturday meeting in Paris, along with EU, African Union, and Arab League officials to discuss further action against Libya. Knowing the threat, Gaddafi said his government will comply with all UN resolution terms. Foreign Minister Koussa confirmed it, citing "strange and unreasonable" terms, noting signs that Western belligerence is planned, joined by two or more Arab states (perhaps Saudi Arabia and Bahrain), saying the resolution violates Libyan sovereignty and UN Charter authority, prohibiting outside intervention. After the vote, Obama met with National Security Council members to consider options, coordinating them with Britain and France, his main co-belligerents for war. Already, US warships, hundreds of marines, and surveillance aircraft are deployed nearby, planning on intervention, including boots on the ground short of occupation. On March 18, New York Times writers Elisabeth Busmiller, David Kirkpatrick and Alan Cowell headlined, "Allies Press Libya, Saying Declaration of Cease-Fire Is Not Enough," stating: Washington, Britain and France "pushed forward against Libya," saying Gaddafi's declaration won't deter military intervention. British Prime Minister Cameron suggested it, saying: "To pass a resolution like this and then just stand back and hope someone in the region would enforce it is wrong," adding that after Saturday's Paris meeting, Gaddafi will be told what's expected. In other words, unacceptable terms may be demanded that no sovereign leader would accept, including resigning as head of state, withdrawing all forces from eastern Libya, as well as other resistance sites (like Misurata and Zawiya), effectively dividing the country. Failing to comply then would provide cause to intervene, no matter how lawlessly. On March 17, Secretary of State Clinton suggested how, saying a no-fly zone entails bombing targets inside Libya to protect planes and pilots, by taking out command and control capability, as well as weapons able to down aircraft. In other words, war will be waged to prevent it, to protect Libyans and save lives by killing them, as well as inflicting widespread destruction, what's always planned when America attacks. On March 18, Stratfor Global Intelligence headlined, "Libya Crisis: Implications of the Cease-Fire," saying: Gaddafi's action "complicates (Western) efforts to spearhead a campaign against Libyan government troops," especially after Tripoli said it's ready to open "all dialogue channels with everyone interested in the territorial unity of Libya." Moreover, it stressed protecting civilians and said it's inviting international community and NGO representatives "to check the facts on the ground by sending fact-finding missions so that they can take the right decision." In other words, Gaddafi hopes his reversal neutralizes the West's will for war, weakening its resolve, isolating America, Britain and France, the main three co-belligerents. Without just cause to attack, doing so will be clear naked aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 For those with little time on their hands or a short attention span, its possible that we haven't been told the entire truth on Libya. Personally I'd like to have had Gadafi killed but as the artice above suggests, the likely outcome will be one despot replacing another - the crucial difference beingthe replacement ruler being more pro Western (compliant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 We could start by bombing whatever crappy little sewer Al-Megrahi is hiding in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 I am a tad confused here, I thought dune liked that Libian dictator - well he said he did a few days ago. He's certainly a character and the world will be a duller place without him, but ultimately oil prices are rising so we need to stabilise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Ta Ta Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 between UK submarines and US submarines and ships over 110 Tomahawk Cruise missiles launched Great, just think how many innocent Libyans that lot will have killed, Gaddaffi just as well sit back and let us do his work for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Great, just think how many innocent Libyans that lot will have killed, Gaddaffi just as well sit back and let us do his work for him And how many would be killed in reprisal action were he to be given a free reign to reassert himself in Cyrenaica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 gadaffi promises a long drawn out war.....I guess more cruise missiles are in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 I just hope this action doesn't come back to haunt us. It's not exactly going to be surprising if Gadaffi retaliates with terrorist attacks here in the UK. I don't see how the UN can end this without a full scale invasion, a few air strikes are not going to topple him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Wasnt it DC that was going on about you cant bomb people into democracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 (edited) 112 cruise missiles fired so far from UK submarines and US warships (or so we are told) destroying 20 targets UK war planes being moved to southern italy Edited 20 March, 2011 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 gadaffi promises a long drawn out war.....I guess more cruise missiles are in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 gadaffi promises a long drawn out war.....I guess more cruise missiles are in order saves cutting them, just fire them at Libya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 I do find it odd how the UN spent weeks deliberating over imposing a no fly zone, then the minute it is approved jump straight in and bomb the living sh!t out of the place - even after Gadaffi declared a cease-fire. You have to wonder what are they trying/hoping to achieve? Because removing gadaffi will need a full scale invasion. And blowing stuff up is just going to **** him off and probably result in more aggression against his people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 bomb the living shyt out of the place.? when did this happen.. also how do you enforce a no fly zone without having increased threat to a/c...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 bomb the living shyt out of the place.? when did this happen.. also how do you enforce a no fly zone without having increased threat to a/c...? 125 missiles is alot of bombing, it will probably do nothing but make more people side with Gadaffi against the UN. It wont remove gadaffi - is there a full scale invasion planned? If not what is it going to achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 125 missiles is alot of bombing, it will probably do nothing but make more people side with Gadaffi against the UN. It wont remove gadaffi - is there a full scale invasion planned? If not what is it going to achieve? eer, no it is not....not really, it was only 20 targets....so we were told Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Latest The libyans have just had a live press conference and have: - Anounced a ceasefire from 1900 hrs UK time. - Called on all people to go to Benghazi in a peaceful march. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 bomb the living shyt out of the place.? when did this happen.. also how do you enforce a no fly zone without having increased threat to a/c...? air-conditioning? good idea, sweat Gaddafi into surrender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 eer, no it is not....not really, it was only 20 targets....so we were told Yeah, because if a country launched 120 cruise missiles at London you wouldn't think it's a big deal. Even if they only hit military targets (big if), that's still people's innocent sons, brothers and friends being blown to bits. Unless there is some sort of end game planned this could quickly go the way of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Yeah, because if a country launched 120 cruise missiles at London you wouldn't think it's a big deal. Even if they only hit military targets (big if), that's still people's innocent sons, brothers and friends being blown to bits. Unless there is some sort of end game planned this could quickly go the way of Iraq. it is a big place..not launched at just tripoli.... as for death etc....part of it...I have been there and done it what we are doing now on a few occaisions in the last 11 years. I can tell you that the first 24 hours of the iraq war, that was alot of bombing...this, is no where near...just safe guarding the aircraft as much as we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 it is a big place..not launched at just tripoli.... I'd imagine that Libya would be a fairly easy target though as basically it's just a strip of land along the coast which makes it at the mercy of a naval offensive. The interior is just desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 (edited) I do find it odd how the UN spent weeks deliberating over imposing a no fly zone, then the minute it is approved jump straight in and bomb the living sh!t out of the place - even after Gadaffi declared a cease-fire. You have to wonder what are they trying/hoping to achieve? Because removing gadaffi will need a full scale invasion. And blowing stuff up is just going to **** him off and probably result in more aggression against his people. He called a ceasefire, then attacked Benghazi with tanks and artillery, his new ;ceasefire' will not mean anything either. Re the highlighted bit, Gadaffi threatened to go door to door in Benghazi, to kill all traitors, this prompted the all night session that gave them the green light. Edited 20 March, 2011 by Gingeletiss E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 March, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2011 I'd imagine that Libya would be a fairly easy target though as basically it's just a strip of land along the coast which makes it at the mercy of a naval offensive. The interior is just desert. its easy as it can be hit from European bases...we can launch tomahawks and storm shadows from the sea/air.....no need for permission to use air space....etc etc. saying that, Tomahawks can be launched from under the water and are accurate enough that you can chose which window you want it to go through....from over 1000 miles away......impressive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 Last edited by Gingeletiss; Today at 07:25 PM. Reason: E Are the keys going all wobbly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 20 March, 2011 Share Posted 20 March, 2011 (edited) Are the keys going all wobbly? Nah, I never put a reason, seems to be no point! Edited 20 March, 2011 by Gingeletiss forgot the smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SO16_Saint Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 I have probably missed the key point somewhere, but when did we go from monitoring the air with a no-fly zone to actually carrying out bombing raids and air strikes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 I have probably missed the key point somewhere, but when did we go from monitoring the air with a no-fly zone to actually carrying out bombing raids and air strikes? Are you surprised at this, I sensed this Government couldn't wait to get stuck in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 Are you surprised at this, I sensed this Government couldn't wait to get stuck in Are you being deliberately thick? We need to knock out their static air defences in the first instance and then give their armed forces another good pummelling to safeguard our boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 I have probably missed the key point somewhere, but when did we go from monitoring the air with a no-fly zone to actually carrying out bombing raids and air strikes? I wasn't going to reply, but as there's now two of you who don't watch the news, or read the papers, I feel I must. It's simple, to effect a 'no fly zone' without major dangers to the pilots, the ground to air missile sites, and the radar sites, need to be nutralised. This is what the bombing is all about at the moment. The attacks on the ground forces Sat night, was due to Gadaffis forces trying for Benghazi via the backdoor, having told the world he was ordering an immediate ceasefire. So don't hold your breath, that his second declairation of a ceasefire last night, will hold water either, given his rhetoric between the two statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 Dune. SNAP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 Are you being deliberately thick? We need to knock out their static air defences in the first instance and then give their armed forces another good pummelling to safeguard our boys. But how do we get round the fact that he's using human shields in strategic areas? I know that's why one sortie pulled out this morning, so how else can we neutralise his defences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 Another silly war motivated by money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 Are you being deliberately thick? We need to knock out their static air defences in the first instance and then give their armed forces another good pummelling to safeguard our boys. Obviously Gaddafi keeps these static air defences in his 'compound' as this was bombed this morning according to the BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 But how do we get round the fact that he's using human shields in strategic areas? I know that's why one sortie pulled out this morning, so how else can we neutralise his defences? I think you'll find dune isn't interested in humans, so using them as shields won't register on what is laughingly called his radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 21 March, 2011 Share Posted 21 March, 2011 I see the americans are about to totally handover this libya conflict to a french/british or nato responsibility Obama is a shrewd character or is he stitching us brits and french like a prized kipper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now