No-fly zone in Libya

[draggar]

The Arab League wanted a no-fly zone enforced in Libya but no one wanted to enforce it nor did they want nations with the capabilities to enforce it.

Next, the UN passes a resolution to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. Of cource, Libya quickly called for an immediate cease-fire. Coincidence? I think not.

Now, France is saying that military actions against Libya could begin soon ( to enforce the no-fly zone). Um, wait, FRANCE? Seriously, FRANCE????

[Donald Aquilano]

This is a joke. Nobody should be involved in Libya's civil war especially the U.S.

[Gerry]

More than anything, I want to see the other Arab nations take a lead in this action...in the air and on the ground. Support and give the logistics, but let them take the lead.

[katherine]

Perhaps it was the most balanced decision. Not invading the country but (temporarily) ending the bloodshed.
The question is, what comes next and how do we get rid of that tyrant. Because he is used up and has no future.

[Gerry]

Its good that the NATO countries and European nations got out in front of this. THEY are closer, THEY are more directly affected by this, and THEY had countless citizens employed and living in that country.

As for the Arab nations, THEY must act. THEY have more to lose if they simply just pass a resolution and do not act upon it. The majority of their Air Forces and ground forces were trained here in the US or had US people on the ground training them. THEY have the greatest manpower and the latest technological and strategical weaponry to go head to head with Libya forces.

[hugegrowth]

It would look better if Arab nations led any actions in or over Libya for sure. Otherwise some would label it as more Western interference.

[Gerry]

It would look better if Arab nations led any actions in or over Libya for sure. Otherwise some would label it as more Western interference.

BINGO! We can not be the police of the world. Time for many of these other countries to put on their big boy pants and MAN UP!

[Gee]

Good , Americans started to ask the right questions

why arab countries dont lead any actions in libya ? , this is the right question

the answer is obvious and I will make it a question

Do arab countries leaders want to take down muaamar el gaddafi ??? ???? you can guess

the arab league is dish party for dictators and it has no credibility among arab people

but back to normal question, will any usa interference be welcomed?

the answer is always a big NO, for them, America and israel are the main enemies and they have to be destroyed

they will say "let america finish first gaddafi, then later we can finish her easier"

if you think arab or libyans will appreciate anything from america, you are nuts

they will not even appreciate humanitarian aids, they will be suspicious about it , they will think it has a purpose even if they accept it for a while

it is sad but true

[Bill Roy]

Gee perhaps I am reading your wording wrong but are 'you' saying that 'America and israel are the main enemies and they have to be destroyed'?

I should point out that it is a very badly kept secret that 'supplies' are heading west from Egypt to the opponents of Gaddafi in Libya. Perhaps the Egyptians should call up their reservists and invade Libya and aid the rebels. Somehow though I do not see that happening (in fact it was said tongue in cheek fashion).

[Gee]

no I was speaking as libyan and most muslim arabs.
I love all countries not only america, I dont hate any, I want peace. and I do believe that america is a good power although I dont agree on many actions.

I was sitting watching TV among crowds of people listening to UN resolution

most of them became angry and yelling, this is invasion INVASION

I tried to explain to them angrily that america had enough from iraq and they will not invade libya, they will only protect civilians

they looked to me in suspicious way but none replied

if it is saudi interference, they wont call it invasion , it is help !!

[Gerry]

if you think arab or libyans will appreciate anything from america, you are nuts

Um, I think that is why we have been staying out of it. We don't trust them.

[Gee]

Um, I think that is why we have been staying out of it. We don't trust them.

I was about to loose my job fighting with few people at work not sympathizing with japan disaster, they say because japan supports israel !!!

those are poor civilians and they have nothing to do with israel ! God bless Japan

[Seraphim]

As the US and UK prepare to enter a third theater of war in just a decade, the following random facts/thoughts/opinions have crossed my mind.

- According to the US Department of Energy Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world. Many experts also agree that the country is still relatively under explored and could possibly possess even larger reserves than previously thought.

- The Guardian, Washington Post, and New York Times all reported substantial Western (Soros Foundation and the United States government) involvement in the recent color revolutions that took place in the former Soviet states.

- The UN is claiming that the Libyan uprising in total has caued several thousand deaths. Many experts believe that number will skyrocket once Western powers get involved (Gaddafi has hundreds of thousands of supporters at the very least).

- What is the difference between the rebels in Libya and the rebels currently fighting Coalition forces in Afghanistan? How about the rebels that fought Coalition forces in Iraq, how were they any different?

- The same media that sold the invasion of Iraq to the general public are now backing rebels that they seem to know nothing about. Does anyone else find that strange? Do they know something that they aren't telling us?

- With most of the heavy fighting of the Iraqi war now in the rear view mirror, my opinion on it is that it was akin to carpet bombing a city block because several local drunkards were causing a ruckus. Hundreds of thousands of people died for a democracy that doesn't even appear to being fulling sticking (Muqtada al-Sadr is growing in power by the day).

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. The US, Britain, and France do not have the moral authority or the right to police the world. A war with Libya could be protracted, extremely bloody, and have serious blow back.

[elius]

There's a moral question here that people tend to "forget" when they judge against these situations. The question is: can you knowingly let a dictator (or any ruler for that matter) shoot, bomb and kill thousands of his own people when they first protested and later on fought to have more freedom. This is not about policing the world, this is about whether anybody can call himself or herself a moral being when he or she knows about the slaughter of a fellow human being and doesn't doing anything about it or even stronger, votes against doing anything about it.

I think this question is especially relevant for people in countries that started out by removing a dictator or by declaring independence i.e. for most people on this forum. Knowing more means having more responsibility. That's why we try to help Japan and that's why we should try to help the Libian people.

[draggar]

most of them became angry and yelling, this is invasion INVASION

Well, the US invaded Afghanistan in an attempt to remove Al-Qaeda (and the Taliban) from power. The US invaded Iraq to remove a dictator from power. Look at what is going on in these two nations now. Afghanistan is almost 10 years later, Iraq is almost 8 years later.

Um, I think that is why we have been staying out of it. We don't trust them.

How can they really trust the US? Some of our major foreign policies change ever 4-8 years. Obama is nothing like G.W. Bush who was nothing like Clinton, who was nothing like G. Bush, who at least was similar to Reagan.

- According to the US Department of Energy Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world. Many experts also agree that the country is still relatively under explored and could possibly possess even larger reserves than previously thought.

INVADE!! INVADE!!! INVADE!!! (OK, that was a joke - but I'm sure I'll find it on some anti-US site with this disclaimer omitted).

- The Guardian, Washington Post, and New York Times all reported substantial Western (Soros Foundation and the United States government) involvement in the recent color revolutions that took place in the former Soviet states.

You needed a newspaper to tell you that? The cold war wasn't a military one, it was a covert one.

- What is the difference between the rebels in Libya and the rebels currently fighting Coalition forces in Afghanistan? How about the rebels that fought Coalition forces in Iraq, how were they any different?

One (Afghanistan and Iraq) are combating what they perceive as an oppressive invasion. The other (Libya) are trying to out their own government.

- The same media that sold the invasion of Iraq to the general public are now backing rebels that they seem to know nothing about. Does anyone else find that strange? Do they know something that they aren't telling us?

But they're anti-Gadaffi! They have to be good, right?? Stalin was anti-Hitler so he was good, right?

Here's an unlikely scenario, please leave out "oh, but that would never happen", I know but this is hyothetical.

Say some anti-US government milita started to rise in power. They became very popular in the northwestern USA (let's say they start in Oregon). They become very popular in Washington State, northern California, Idaho, and most of Montana.

They decide one day to overthrow the US government in an attempt to overthrow the US government. They quickly take control of the aforementioned areas plus the rest of Montana, the Dakotas, parts of Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. Fighting was going on in those border states - militia troops vs. US military. Large cities like Seattle, Portland, and Boise were used to manufacture munitions for the militia.

Do people really think the US government would just sit back and either "talk" or just let them have the northwest for themselves? Hell no, the US government would be at war with those states and bomb where they could to get an advantage. Civilian causalities would happen but of course the US government would write it off as "collateral" damage or "accidents".

What is happening in Libya is very similar.

[Gerry]

We (the U.S.) is one of those people who they hate when we are there and hate when we are not there.

All I have to do is look back at Iran (the Shah) and Afghanistan vs. Russia (US training Osama et al). Seems we have spent some serious time, effort, money, and lives trying to buy friends in the middle east only to have them turn on us.

We leave and we let them slug it out. This is the days of ancient Persia and Babylon, tribe vs. tribe. Only now their swords go BOOM!

[draggar]

Just in - French fighter jets fire on Libyan military vehicles.

US launches missile attacks against Libyan targets.

I guess the US and France are now at war with Libya (declared or not?).

I don't know which is more surprising - the fact that France was really the first to take military actions against Libya or the fact that Obama actually acted.

Edit: British fighter jets have joined in.

[Gerry]

100-110 tomahawk missiles launched, according to Pentagon briefing.

This is phase one.

[Bill Roy]

Now let us see how 'resolute' the mercenaries are being employed by Gaddafi?

110 Tomahawk missiles fired plus French Jet fires on Gaddafi forces vehicle.

For those who support Gaddafi (the military) must now weigh up taking on the world.

The most surprising thing in all of this is the abstention of 5 members of the UN Security Council, so no votes against - makes you wonder why they abstained? Did they not have the information to decide one way or another?

To all UN forces now engaged a simple message - Good Luck. Our thoughts are with you and our prays for your safe return home when you have done your duty.



.....................

UPDATE.

112 Tomahawks reportedly fired by US and UK ships at 20 Air Defence systems, communications, and other military targets.

[Gerry]

I don't know which is more surprising - the fact that France was really the first to take military actions against Libya or the fact that Obama actually acted.

The French thing is the surprise.

Obama or not, there was no doubt in my mind that intel had worked on locating AntiAircraft sites, SAM missile sites, and radar. Phase one is typically and action to take out there defenses. There is no doubt in my mind that even before the French took to the air, AWAC planes were directing the air traffic and most likely jamming the signals of the Libyan forces. Most first strike aircraft of the US (and perhaps France) have first strike aircraft that are equipped with radio jamming equipment to disrupt missile and radar sites. I remember the F-111's having this capability. Wicked shit. That was one badass plane - fighter jet and bomber all in one.

I also know the French Jaguar fighter jet also having this capability. Both of these were old school. Now we're talking new school like this:







This is the bad ass French Dessault Rafale that CNN keeps showing. Can turn on a dime with those front forward flaps.