18
   

ARAB LEAGUE CALLS FOR A NO-FLY ZONE IN LYBIA

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 05:19 pm
@Setanta,
holy ****, I can only hope I don't have any thoughts to post on Osso's thread, it could turn into a military action on a2k. Ok never mind, I never have any thoughts anyway, especially on middle-east issues.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 05:21 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Can we get back on topic, and leave the infantile name calling to another thread, please.

As for the no fly zone in Libya, I personally believe that the US should not get involved, nor should we commit any forces to it.
To the best of my klnowledge, every country bordering the Med is a member of the UN, and the actions in Libya have more effect on them then they do us.
So, let the members of the Arab League and let the countries bordering the Med enforce it.


1000% correct. We are not World Police and we're not Captain Save-a-rebel. None of this has anything to do with us at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 05:26 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
and there aren't any carriers to spare right now.


There are 11 active carriers in the US Navy right now.
The resources are there to use if we wanted to, but it would entail moving a carrier from somewhere else.
Since most carriers are not engaged in combat right now, but are on routine patrols, it would not be hard to do.

However, IMHO the US should not in any way get involved in Libya.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 06:09 pm
@dyslexia,
Uhm, yeah . . . you don't know nothin' 'bout them Ay-rabs, huh?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 06:29 pm
@mysteryman,
"Routine patrols" eh. I've been on a few myself. Luxury cruises on wages. But don't tell the taxpayers.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 06:38 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

[The resources are there to use if we wanted to, but it would entail moving a carrier from somewhere else.
Since most carriers are not engaged in combat right now, but are on routine patrols, it would not be hard to do.


"Routine patrols" in the Persian Gulf, plus 2 in the Northern Arabian sea; one in Japan; one in Westpac; one in major overhaul, 2 in maintenance periods and 4 in workup training. A few years ago we had 12 or 13, and they have been pretty busy for a long time.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 06:46 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

"Routine patrols" in the Persian Gulf, plus 2 in the Northern Arabian sea; one in Japan; one in Westpac; one in major overhaul, 2 in maintenance periods and 4 in workup training. A few years ago we had 12 or 13, and they have been pretty busy for a long time.
And last I heard we still had a carrier pulled out of rotation to deal with the Japan situation....
Quote:
Obama announced the news in the U.S. Third Fleet in the Fleet spokesman Greg Hicks home port of San Diego, California, said in a statement, is the Western Pacific, "Ronald Reagan" aircraft had been ordered to Japan disaster relief. He said the air carrier to provide assistance for disaster relief, the ship's medical facilities, clean water, also provide assistance for disaster relief. Prior to this, "Ronald Reagan" aircraft carrier battle group is on the way to the South Korean waters. Aircraft carrier is expected to arrive in a few days, the Sea of ​​Japan.
http://qiyounetcom.over-blog.com/article-japan-u-s-to-send-aircraft-carriers-to-assist-in-disaster-relief-ronald-reagan-a-few-days-to-reach-69136032.html
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 08:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
Japan is located in the Western Pacific (surprise!) and a carrier is supposed to be somewhere in the vicinity at all times pursuant to the Defense Pact. I was there when the Iraq invasion started and "their" carrier, then the Kitty Hawk, was ordered to the Persian Gulf - people started walking up to me and angrily asking why their carrier was sailing off; after a while I got tired of patiently explaining nobody consults me before ordering such things and started to bow slightly and say I was very sorry. That seemed to satisfy them as it was the end of the conversation Smile
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 08:41 pm
@dyslexia,
Pah, she says. I'd be interested in your thoughts and so would some others here, I bet.

I'm generally - but possibly not always - for keeping our big feet out of issues like this, with the exception of genocide situations, and especially re Libya re reasons Robert elaborated about the line of precedent of our involvements and subsequent resentments.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:26 am
@mysteryman,
Weren't you in favor of invading Iraq?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:44 am
@Robert Gentel,
I didnt have the choice of being in favor of it or not, I was in the military then.
However, I do still think it was the right thing to do, especially after having been there.

I am on record however, as saying that once we c aptured Saddam Hussein we should have left.

But we are not talking about Iraq, or a similiar situation.
What is going on in Libya is essentially a civil war, nothing more.
The only way I would support the US getting involved in Libya is if Ghaddafi makes good on his threat to start targeting the Med and every ship in it.
He threatened to do that if the world tried to establish a "no-fly"zone.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:47 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
But we are not talking about Iraq, or a similiar situation.


Sure, but all the arguments you used against intervening in Libya apply for Iraq, you could swap them in this argument and it'd still work perfectly.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:53 am
Hot off the press.

Quote:
Officials: U.S. prepares missile attack on Libya



BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — The U.S. prepared to a launch a missile attack on Libyan air defenses, but American ships and aircraft stationed in and around the Mediterranean Sea did not participate in initial French air missions Saturday, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the unfolding intervention.

* A Libyan jet bomber crashes after being hit over Benghazi on Saturday as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack.



By Patrick Baz, AFP/Getty Images

A Libyan jet bomber crashes after being hit over Benghazi on Saturday as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack.

One official said the U.S. intends to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses.

An attack against those defenses with Navy sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles was planned for later Saturday, one official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of military operations.

The official said that depending on how Libyan forces responded to initial intervention by the French and others, the U.S. could launch additional attacks in support of allied forces. The intention was to leave it to other nations to patrol a no-fly zone over Libya once air defenses are silenced, the official said.

On Saturday, French fighter jets soared over a rebel-held city besieged by Moammar Gadhafi's troops, the first mission for an international military force launched in support of the 5-week-old uprising.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Is that an AP story?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:29 pm
@mysteryman,
Never mind CI.
I just found this...

Quote:
Mar 19, 2:09 PM EDT


BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) -- French fighter jets fired the first shots at Moammar Gadhafi's troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat.

In the hours before the no-fly zone over Libya went into effect, Gadhafi sent warplanes, tanks and troops into Benghazi, the rebel capital and first city to fall to the rebellion that began Feb. 15. Then the government attacks appeared to go silent.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said after an emergency summit in Paris that French jets were already targeting Gadhafi's forces. The 22 participants in Saturday's summit agreed to do everything necessary to make Gadhafi respect a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday demanding a cease-fire, Sarkozy said.


The rest of the article is here...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_LIBYA?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-19-14-09-17




0 Replies
 
upstream
 
  5  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:31 pm
My thoughts/questions are as follows...

It is now clear that military action will proceed in Libya against the Libyan government. My concern is that this action may be politically motivated rather than a humanitarian action. Let's think about this for a moment...

I live in the UK. If a group of Labour supporters suddenly decided to rise up and rebel, would the UN decide to act on the side of the rebels?

Recently in Bahrain - Did the UN intervene then? What about Iran...?

The problem as I see it is that once the uprising got under way many Western governments were openly saying that Gadaffi should go - it would be petty embarrassing for them now if he ended up staying wouldn't it...?

When you set yourself up as the world's policeman your actions have to be seen to be just and not politically motivated - at the moment, I'm not convinced here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:41 pm
@upstream,
You hit the apparitional nail on the head.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:47 pm
@upstream,
I think a lot of this reaction has been conditioned by his (Kadaffi's) brutality, and the fact that he's been a thorn in the side of the West ever since his coup in 1969. He's also not that big a player in the oil market. Saudi Arabia, a Sunni nation, sent troops to Bahrain, where the population is majority Shi'ite. The Wahabbi clan married into the Ibn Saud clan in the 18th century, and the Wahabbis are agruably among the most radical of militant Sunni fundamentalists (Osama Been Forgotten is/was a Wahabbi adherent). So you can bet most Saudis don't give a rat's ass about how many Bahraini Shi'ites got knocked on the head.

But why did the international community not react in the same manner as they have over Libya? Well, those boys are our good buddies, and more importantly, they're sitting atop the world's largest reserves of light, sweet crude oil. There's no denying that Kadaffi's a brutal son-of-a-bitch, and we haven't had the same complaints about the Saud clan, or the Persian Gulf Emirs. But brutality is brutality, and there's something that stinks badly here.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:48 pm
@upstream,
I believe you make a very good argument. The obvious fact is that, though Ghadaffi is clearly a tyrant who both oppresses the Libyan people and has supported terrorist acts against us (and the UK), he is by no means the worst oppressor or opponent in a world that still contains regimes the like of those in Iran, Zimbabwe and others. It is hard to make an argument for the interverntion in Libya that is based on consistent principles of justice. Clearly the self interestsd and convenience of the leading figures in the international community are factors in choosing Libya and Ghadaffi as objects of its intervention.

However the leading proponents of the supposed legal rights of the "international community" to intervene in the affairs of others, and do so as a matter of principle, as opposed to self-interest, are the largely Europeran sponsors of the ICC and rule by the UN, not the United States (until recently at least). You should make your argument to them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:54 pm
MM's AP source wrote:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said after the summit: "The time for action has come, it needs to be urgent."


Oh, it's urgent, Bubba . . . and it has been for several days.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 03:44:06