PDA

View Full Version : World Unites against Libya/Libya haults assualt



djones520
03-17-2011, 11:51 PM
A collection of stories, but plenty are stepping up to the plate.


Italy to make bases available for Libya no-fly zone-source

Reuters) - Italy is ready to make its military bases available to enforce a U.N. Security Counci resolution imposing a no-fly zone on Libya, an Italian government source told Reuters on Thursday.

The airbase at Sigonella in Sicily, which provides logistical support for the United States Sixth Fleet, is one of the closest NATO bases to Libya and could be used in any military operation.

"It's a positive development," an Italian goverrnment source told Reuters minutes after the U.N. Security Council voted in favour of the no-fly zone.

Asked whether Italy would offer its bases for the enforcement of the U.N. resolution, the source said: "Yes, we've said we are ready to do that."



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/libya-nofly-italy-idUSLDE72G2HE20110317?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22&sp=true


Libya airstrikes could start 'within hours of resolution'

The United Nations seems on the brink of taking a momentous decision. After hanging back for days the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up. The fact that the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, will be here in person is a sign of French confidence that the Russians and Chinese won't block the resolution.
The latest draft I have seen goes well beyond calling for a no-fly zone. It says that the Arab League, individual nations and organizations like Nato are authorized to "take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat...including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force."

I am told the first strikes will be unilateral ones by British and French aircraft. They could be in the air within hours. It is likely five Arab air forces will take part. Hillary Clinton has said it will mean bombing Libyan air defences. Nato will step up if asked but could take a while.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/03/airstrikes_on_libya_could_comm.html


Canada To Send Warplanes To Enforce Libya No-Fly Zone - Report

MONTREAL (AFP)--Canada plans to send six fighter jets to help enforce a ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110317-717616.html

djones520
03-17-2011, 11:52 PM
I've found no published stories yet about any actions the US may be taking.

djones520
03-18-2011, 12:24 AM
Looks like the vikings are getting in on it as well.

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/international/89-international/51195-denmark-ready-with-f-16s-to-defend-libyan-people.html

lacarnut
03-18-2011, 12:33 AM
This is all horse shit to me. If we are going to invade every country that the citizens want to overthrow, why not Iran. We pass resolutions against them and do nothing. We should let others carry the water for a change. Plus, we can not continue to be the policeman of the world. We are frigging broke. Severe budget cuts are needed including defense.

djones520
03-18-2011, 08:48 AM
TRIPOLI/UNITED NATIONS, March 18 (Reuters) - Muammar

Gaddafi's government said it was declaring a unilateral

ceasefire in its offensive to crush Libya's revolt, as Western

warplanes prepared to attack his forces.

"We decided on an immediate ceasefire and on an immediate

stop to all military operations," Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa

told reporters in Tripoli on Friday, after the U.N. Security

Council passed a resolution authorising military action.



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrapup-12-un-okays-military-action-libya-gaddafi-20110317-170506-153.html

Odysseus
03-18-2011, 09:03 AM
This is all horse shit to me. If we are going to invade every country that the citizens want to overthrow, why not Iran. We pass resolutions against them and do nothing. We should let others carry the water for a change. Plus, we can not continue to be the policeman of the world. We are frigging broke. Severe budget cuts are needed including defense.

This is pointless for several reasons. First, the rebels are no more pro-American than Qaddafi. We gain nothing by putting them in power. What we ought to do is use the no-fly zone to hamstring Qaddafi and perpetuate a stalemate that saps both sides. That would serve our interests.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-18-2011, 07:58 PM
This is all horse shit to me. If we are going to invade every country that the citizens want to overthrow, why not Iran. We pass resolutions against them and do nothing. We should let others carry the water for a change. Plus, we can not continue to be the policeman of the world. We are frigging broke. Severe budget cuts are needed including defense.

Well there are not going to be any ground troops, so we aren't invading Libya. Not to mention both the UK and France are going to take a pretty big role, wouldn't be shocked if more of the EU didn't jump on board too since they've given the guy so much money to entrench himself with. Lastly since its a binding UN Security Council resolution, the UN is going to pick up most of the tab. We are still paying for it by virtue of our substantial funding for the UN, but its spread out amongst many other states as well.

I really dont have much of a problem with this. The rebels really cant be any worse than Qaddafi and there's a huge moral issue with just standing by and watching a genocide be committed.

Odysseus
03-18-2011, 09:57 PM
Well there are not going to be any ground troops, so we aren't invading Libya. Not to mention both the UK and France are going to take a pretty big role, wouldn't be shocked if more of the EU didn't jump on board too since they've given the guy so much money to entrench himself with. Lastly since its a binding UN Security Council resolution, the UN is going to pick up most of the tab. We are still paying for it by virtue of our substantial funding for the UN, but its spread out amongst many other states as well.

Sarkozy will happily commit what he has, but he lacks a few critical things, like aircraft carriers, and long range fighter aircraft, for that matter, not to mention the capacity to protect his aircraft from ground radar. The Brits have allowed their capabilities to erode to the point where they, too, have next to nothing. The only aircraft in Italy capable of hitting Libya are ours. Ultimately, this will be us, with token support from the various NATO members. Remember that China and Russia are patrons of Qaddafi and would not have voted for a no-fly zone if they thought that it had a chance.


I really dont have much of a problem with this. The rebels really cant be any worse than Qaddafi and there's a huge moral issue with just standing by and watching a genocide be committed.

Where were you when your namesake was aiding and abetting genocide in the Ukraine? Or do communists no longer have the stomach for mass murder?

djones520
03-18-2011, 10:02 PM
Sarkozy will happily commit what he has, but he lacks a few critical things, like aircraft carriers, and long range fighter aircraft, for that matter, not to mention the capacity to protect his aircraft from ground radar. The Brits have allowed their capabilities to erode to the point where they, too, have next to nothing. The only aircraft in Italy capable of hitting Libya are ours. Ultimately, this will be us, with token support from the various NATO members. Remember that China and Russia are patrons of Qaddafi and would not have voted for a no-fly zone if they thought that it had a chance.



Where were you when your namesake was aiding and abetting genocide in the Ukraine? Or do communists no longer have the stomach for mass murder?

I would imagine we'd commit some cruies missile strikes to take out Qaddafi's more static air defenses, but it shouldn't have to be more then that. The British and French do have their own air refueling aircraft which mitigated their lack of long ranged bombers and fighters. Sig is pretty close to the eastern Libyan cities were the combat is occuring right now, so they don't have that far they have to go.

Madisonian
03-18-2011, 10:19 PM
Let's get real here.
The only reason the Useless Nations voted against Libya is because they expect the US to bear the brunt of the burden and cost and in this way it makes it look like they are "doing something" and "taking a stand".
The same stand they took against Iraq and bailed on, Iran and bailed on.

Let's see the Brits, French, Germans, Italians and the rest of their side of the world take care of a problem for once all by themselves without our help, aid or intervention. They have a lot more to lose than we do with not only Libya but the entire current Middle East and northern Africa quagmire.

Odysseus
03-19-2011, 12:19 AM
Let's get real here.
The only reason the Useless Nations voted against Libya is because they expect the US to bear the brunt of the burden and cost and in this way it makes it look like they are "doing something" and "taking a stand".
The same stand they took against Iraq and bailed on, Iran and bailed on.

Let's see the Brits, French, Germans, Italians and the rest of their side of the world take care of a problem for once all by themselves without our help, aid or intervention. They have a lot more to lose than we do with not only Libya but the entire current Middle East and northern Africa quagmire.

Or, because they expect nothing to happen with Obama in charge.

ironhorsedriver
03-19-2011, 06:19 AM
Once, we would have been the leader, for or against.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_p osition_on_libya

namvet
03-19-2011, 08:28 AM
Once, we would have been the leader, for or against.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_p osition_on_libya


"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

no !!! yankee stay home. no involvement what so ever