Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Share

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:01 pm

    112 Tomahawks fired according to Pentagon press conference live on CNN...

    Lauched from US and UK subs and US ships.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:02 pm

    The Libyan SAM Network

    http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/libyan-sam-network.html

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:04 pm



    libyan airdefence according to inss centre


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:50 pm

    I see on the news this morning the west has launched over 100 cruise missiles at 20 Libyan targets.

    Fairly clear they have decided they will not get any libyan oil if they don't use force now.

    Clear evidence which way they think this civil war is going.

    BTW also saw footage of "protesters" on the back of a flat bed truck with a twin strelets launcher with fairly new looking Igla missiles on it... amazing that the Libyan protesters get such equipment so easily... bet the Palestinians are totally jealous.

    Protesters still being called protesters in the west even though they are clearly not just protesters.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:07 am

    GarryB wrote:I see on the news this morning the west has launched over 100 cruise missiles at 20 Libyan targets.

    Fairly clear they have decided they will not get any libyan oil if they don't use force now.

    Clear evidence which way they think this civil war is going.

    BTW also saw footage of "protesters" on the back of a flat bed truck with a twin strelets launcher with fairly new looking Igla missiles on it... amazing that the Libyan protesters get such equipment so easily... bet the Palestinians are totally jealous.

    Protesters still being called protesters in the west even though they are clearly not just protesters.
    yeah,clearly they are destroying their country...
    you know,libya is arich country,,low population,high income and oil...(libyans are richlike saudi arabia)

    what ahell they did now !!?
    just destroying all these things...

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:34 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Perhaps they like their independence and we don't want to Imperialize them?

    It is amusing you think they will get a choice in the matter... it has nothing to do with them.

    But it does.

    But here's a question, what other country don't have their quacks who only care for their own country?

    You miss the point again. The problem is not what America does... it is what it says.
    I don't care if the US kidnaps people and tortures them, what I mind is when the US sees fit to lecture others on democracy and freedom and being civilised... and uses such excuses for its own means. Saddam gassed his own people... lets invade him. But hang on, the Iraqi people he gassed were Kurds opposed to his rule. His gassing of these people is very much like US treatment of native americans, or for that matter the Vietnamese.

    Lying is very intricate part of Politics.

    No policeman and we all kill each other, very simple.

    That is happening anyway. Policemen don't stop crime... they manage it.
    Creating a police force does not eliminate crime.
    In this case the US is not a police force... it is a lynch mob.

    No, the problem is that there is not enough police. Which again means that if you think you can do better, step up.

    Besides, U.N. Security council mandates us to protect countries from various atrocities.

    The UN isn't a world police, its purpose is a forum for international disputes. It has been perverted by the West as a surrogate rubber stamp production line to support their invasions and interventions, and hear them squeal when it doesn't do as it is told!!!

    ...what do you mean we can't invade Iraq without any evidence to prove he has or is working on WMDs... well we don't need your approval... we will just reinterpret something you have already said to justify our invasion.

    Of course there is little mention of UNSC resolution 1244 because that is a unique case. Ironic that Kosovo is a unique case... so by inference all the other cases are the same.

    The UN is the Police HQ. The UNSC is the police.

    Well, more reason to get another policeman on the block right?

    Except US policy is to maintain dominance and crush all rivals and potential rivals... and I would argue if you could get a policeman you would have a policeman and the lynch mob of rich and powerful... and largely white countries.

    If that is so, do explain why we haven't nuked Moscow or Beijing. :rolleyes:

    There's a big difference between Protesters and Civil war.

    English is my first language... and I would say a protester with an assault rifle is not a protester any more.
    Protesters carry signs and shout slogans. They might throw rocks or bottles but if they are armed in most countries the police would tell them to put the gun down a couple of times and then shoot them... or just shoot them.

    No, that's called the difference between Peaceful and Violent protests.

    Oh please, google for the status updates on various social media sites.
    More people cared about Libyan protesters being shot at by Hinds than
    they cared about Libya's status of Top Oil Reserves in North Africa.

    And these people who are worried... were any of them named Obama? How about Clinton?
    Do you think Goldman Sachs cares? These people are not on social media sites they are more likely looking at the current crude oil price and talking with all sorts of military people about what force can be justified and what allies can be roped in to do.

    That's the thing, how many Top Govt or Business officials care about the people? Not in the U.S. but around the world? Not a lot. Most EU officials say they care but like you said, have alternate motives. As I said, everyone are hypocrites, that doesn't make what we say wrong.

    Again, if you haven't noticed, we're preoccupied in 2 wars already.

    But one of those wars ended years ago didn't it? And I remember quite clearly... we will go in alone if we have to... then NATO was roped in to Afghanistan. The choices you make have consequences.

    Those wars didn't end 2 years ago.

    You complain that we don't care about the Libyan people simply because
    we're not intervening for them, yet you fail to realize we're already
    intervening elsewhere.

    Actually you are missing the point already... these revolts are happening all over the region of ME and North Africa. Unarmed protesters in Iraq and Afghanistan are dispersed by rifle fire but that doesn't appear on your news. People in lots of countries are demanding change but your media and your government is fixated on the one country. Which country is that I wonder? Is it the country they have already brought peace and democracy to that they are just about to leave (Iraq)? No. Is it the country they are currently fighting in (Afghanistan)? No. Is it that country that is handing money out in a desperate attempt to prevent the people rising up against their dictator rule (Saudi Arabia)? No.
    The one place where the entire west is focused is the civil war in Libya, and when the "protesters" are armed with assault rifles and machineguns and rocket launchers they are not protesters... they are revolutionaries and this is a civil war that the west wants to butt into... not to save anyone... to ensure they have connections to whomever takes power because you can guarantee there will be oil contracts up for sale to the highest bidder.

    What are you talking about? They all appear on the news. Just because it's harder to find doesn't mean they aren't there. And seriously, again, we can't handle all your problems.

    I would love to see China and Russia have a comparable global intervention force, but they don't.

    I am very glad they don't. It is not Russia's business or problem to create or remove governments of countries by force. Russia would love a Russia friendly government in Georgia right now but it is not going to invade to make that happen. They have been there and done that and know it is pointless. Using force increases hostility and strengthens your enemies within the population you want to subdue.

    Please put some Lenin quote here. Something about good men stopping evil.


    Live is not fair. We're here to make it fair. We're sorry for
    Imperialism, but China isn't China without their 4000 year history of
    conquest (Chinese wars have cost at least 80 million lives). Past is
    behind us, no more Imperialism please.

    Life is fair is what the US preaches. It is a big powerful country because it is the best and deserves to be.

    But life is not fair as you point out... which is why war and imperialism will remain a part of our past, our present, and our future.

    The US likes ideals.... and that is nice, but the future is not some utopia like Star Trek with its noble rules, it is more likely to be a cross between Blade Runner and Starship Troopers.

    The future is some Utopia. It is nay sayers who through their nay saying, negate that. Imperialism should stop, if people don't want it to stop, it won't.

    Iranian and Cuban futures are what they are because of their Governments
    also. I cannot explain the actions of my Government as I was not alive
    back then and thus, did not have a vote nor a voice.

    Hahahahahahaha... there was no vote! In both cases it was the same... the US controlled both countries and was using them to make money... Iran was oil, and Cuba was sugar and gambling and tourism. In both countries the people stood up and said F off to the rich powerful elite that were in bed with the US, and said respectively that the people should benefit from the oil under their feet, and that the Cuban people should have more to look forward to that cutting sugar cane and waiting on fat Americans on the beach and in casinos.
    Nothing p!sses a rich person off more than taking their easy source of money from them... you don't think it was an accident that all the big sugar plantations in Cuba are white man owned... just like all those farmers in Zimbabwe with huge farms are white too. You'd think only a white man can make money. Cheap local labour makes for good profits of course.

    It is the same in Venezuela, and most other places "colonised". The rich people are either white or the ethnic group that first colonised the area. The local indians are cheap labour and generally poor and kept poor.
    Hugo Chavez made the mistake of trying to change things for the poor majority and the rich minority didn't like that. Usually this is the cue for the CIA to help out their rich buddies because when the rich control a country it is easy to push the right buttons and control it. A democracy on the other hand can change overnight and shut you out. Of course the CIA did act by removing Hugo, but he got back into power and suddenly got a strong disliking for the US... gee I don't know why... perhaps the hypocrisy of the US mouth extolling the virtues of democracy while the CIA in the background does everything it can to undermine democracy where it suits the US. The US relationship with Stalin during WWII and the Chinese in the middle of the cold war shows when it suits they would happily get into bed with almost anyone when it suits them.

    I am not criticising them for that... but for all the freedom and democracy BS they spout and the lectures they give on how to be a good democracy to Russia and all other countries.

    Those are case by case failures of the system. Doesn't mean the entire system failed. Unlike democracy in Russia.

    If death is what fears one from freedom, he does not deserve freedom.

    Totally agree, yet your country continues to punish Russia despite fighting for and getting democracy, and thinks the best solution for Iraq or Afganistan or Libya is for western forces to intervene and give them a democracy they actually know little about.

    Russian Democracy is laughable.

    So you say. In reality, you base your opinion off a minority group, taking extreme examples and projecting them as a reality.

    The US government kidnaps and tortures people. The US government is representing YOU and all your countrymen. Yet has the temerity to criticise China for locking up its dissidents.

    So would it be wrong to say that Palestinian suicide bombers represent the Palestinian people? Or would it be wrong to say that a friendly fire accident represents the entire branch of the military? No, it's not. A minority group is a minority group, don't take it's word.

    What you fail to realize that for the majority of Americans, what we
    want is what the majority of the world wants, food on table, walls
    around table, etc.

    I totally understand and agree. A stable job, a house, and your health.
    The problem is that your government is doing terrible things... most of them unnecessary, a lot of them are actually counter productive.
    You didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam was no threat to Iran or Jordan or Syria or Israel... the only country he could take on with any hope of succeeding was little Kuwaite and he was forcibly ejected from there in 1991.

    There was no need to continue scratching at the stitches... there was zero chance of him ever being a real threat to anyone else the no fly zones were expensive and totally pointless.
    If the Kurds wanted their freedom then let them fight for it. There was no one else in the region he could take on and hope to beat. If he did then you have full justification to give enormous support to whomever he turned on and that would likely lead to his rapid defeat and demise at home.
    Instead you picked and picked and when he didn't react you just invaded... great. Now lets face it, it will become a Shia state as they are the clear majority in numbers terms... Iran v2.

    And we know they're doing those things, we bitch and we cry but admittedly the number of quacks here are more than there are elsewhere, but progress in that field is slow.

    It's like if a smoker told a non-smoker that smoking is bad, he right there, is holding his morals high above the non-smoker.

    But that isn't a good example... a more accurate example would be a heavy smoker tells a light smoker that he is evil for smoking. Most heavy smokers will at best ignore you... they already know it... you aren't telling them anything new, and at worst they will punch you in the face and tell you to mind your own F'in business.

    Telling someone they shouldn't smoke is not a good way to start a friendship.

    Just like... you look a bit fat but I think I might Fk you anyway is not the best pick up line... (I do all my best work when I am drinking... Very Happy )

    True, but to expand such the analogy, imagine the two smokers in a classroom of kids. Think about the children!

    But is it within logical reasoning to deduce that because the smoker
    tells the non-smoker not to smoke, that the smoker is thus a hypocrite,
    and thus wrong about not smoking? No, because smoking inherently is bad,
    and a bad man telling a man to do a good thing is not hypocritical, it
    is the right thing to do.

    It is totally hypocritical when the non-smoker is actually a smoker, and rather than telling the smoker he shouldn't smoke, he says he is a bad person and a poor role model for his children to smoke. That is worse that just a lecture... it is the start of an argument. Great way to start talks....

    Well no, because the smoker being inherently, some old guy who's been smoking for 40 odd years, has that experience edge, in that he knows the way around the cigar. However, that non-smoker who apparently turned out to be a smoker, may be inherently young, and inexperienced in the ways of the Cigar. Although, while thinking about this analogy, it has occurred to me that the U.S. being 200 some odd years old and China being 4000 some odd years old, they, by default, are the more experienced smoker, but that still does not make it wrong for the smoker to tell the non-smoker that smoking is bad. It may be confrontational but it isn't the wrong thing to do.

    Otherwise, why does everyone judge us about our Carbon emissions?

    Perhaps because they are quite excessive for your population size? And you don't seem to care about anyone else but yourself?

    Rhetorical question was rhetorical.

    Each decision will affect us one way or another. If it affects us, we
    care. If it affects you, you care. Therefore, it is within our
    perceptive boundaries to pass judgment and receive judgment.

    Based on that logic I would suggest that all the world get to vote in US elections as being a superpower most things you do effects the rest of the world. Whether it is bribing Fiji to get them to vote against Nuclear Weapon bans for the Pacific, or no fly zones created around the place arbitrarily... not to mention regime change or wikileaks evidence that NATO seems to be in Americas pocket and your spies within that organisation reduce it to your puppet.

    Apply for citizenship Very Happy

    The Third major political party in the U.S. would be the Green party,
    which are a collection of paranoid schizophrenics who only put blame on
    whoever is the biggest and the baddest and the opposite of what they
    care about. You should study about America more.

    See now that is the thing... I am interested in Russian and Soviet military equipment mainly. I will watch Bear Grylls struggling through Siberia, but I don't think I could sit through a couple of hours of Russian folk music.
    But then I don't think I could sit through hours of any folk music.

    Well, I'm just interested in Military history in general. I only started researching the Russo/Soviet military when it occurred to me how little I knew past the Iron Curtain. I prefer Survivorman over Bear Grylls however.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:09 am

    Three B-2 stealth bombers flying non-stop from the United States have dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield tonight in an attempt to destroy much of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's air force, CBS News David Martin reports.
    Libyan state TV is reporting that air strikes have killed 48 people and wounded 150 in "civilian areas!!!!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20044969-503543.html

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:03 pm

    I know I said earlier in the thread that France bombing Libya much less leading the operation was fantasy... but damn. Sarko suprised the hell out of me.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:15 pm

    Sarko pretty much put it all in for the Rebels. It's now or never.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:54 pm

    damn ,picture of bombing..

    http://www.b.dk/billedeserier/luftangreb-rammer-gaddafi-loyale-styrker

    for what all this attacks ?! it's libya not russia or china !

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:55 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Sarko pretty much put it all in for the Rebels. It's now or never.

    It looks like that is exactly what he is doing...


    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:40 pm

    Strikes turn tide in Battle for Benghazi

    * Anthony Loyd
    * From: The Times
    * March 21, 2011 9:20AM


    A Libyan rebel celebrates the result of French air strikes on Gaddafi forces near Benghazi. Picture: AFP Source: AFP

    ON Saturday they obeyed the folly of their leader, took their orders and made a city cower beneath their guns.

    Yesterday they lay dead among their blazing war machines, Gaddafi loyalist troops blasted to pieces by French airstrikes that in an instant turned their advance upon Benghazi into an utter rout.

    The first French strikes hit here shortly after 4am local time, hitting pro-Gaddafi tanks just outside Garyounis, the south-western suburb of Benghazi into which government forces had pushed a day earlier, bringing panic to the city and sending thousands of refugees fleeing eastward.

    “They would have killed us all in Benghazi if it weren't for the French and British,” said a rebel fighter, Jubran, as he surveyed a destroyed tank, its turret thrown across the desert floor by the force of an explosion. “I called in the strike on this tank just after 4am, relaying word of its position to our headquarters in Benina airfield, who passed on its location to the French. They dealt with it quick.”

    Colonel Gaddafi's units had penetrated Garyounis on Saturday morning but were held up by rebels in heavy fighting.

    The wrecks of destroyed vehicles from both sides - pick-up trucks, civilian cars and two buses, all burnt out and bullet riddled - lay on either side of the main route linking Benghazi with Tripoli. Some of the wrecks, including tanks, were still aflame, and the foliage of shell-shattered trees lay scattered across the tarmac.

    Rebel insiders say that these forces had halted their thrust into Benghazi by noon on Saturday because of shortages of fuel and ammunition. “Our radios picked up their transmissions,” one said. “They were halted by fighting with our units and couldn't resupply their forward troops.”

    Later on Saturday afternoon the loyalist forces had fallen back to the southernmost outskirts of Garyounis, where rebels say they were being reinforced by fresh units and supplies, and continued to menace the city. It was here that the first airstrikes found them. But as the troops began to retreat, hit by the French and harried by rebels, much worse awaited them in Tika, 30km south of Benghazi.

    At a road junction they were struck again by jets at 6.30am yesterday. The aircraft caught a concentration of tanks, transporters, armoured personnel carriers and pick-ups. It is hard to imagine how anyone escaped the frightful wrath that exploded in their midst.

    Tanks lay twisted, their hulls shattered almost beyond recognition, as rebel fighters swarmed among their carcasses. At least 20 pick-ups, incinerated to little more than buckled metal, surrounded them. Ammunition trucks continued to explode as the rebels looted whatever they could, the fires sending missiles and rockets veering across a sky blackened with palls of smoke. A DHL supply lorry, used by the loyalist troops to carry their rations - in this case fruit - lay slewed and blasted at the roadside, its cargo impossibly intact. Rebel fighters strode among the corpses of burnt soldiers shouting in celebration, eating bananas and apples.

    “See this one,” a rebel said to me, pointing to the upper torso of a teenage soldier - all that was left of him. He pointed to the youth's smooth face. “A son of Gaddafi. Just a boy.”

    Some corpses were intact, others barely identifiable as human. One smouldering cadaver lay in the back of a bomb-blasted ambulance. I touched the floor of a huge crater beside the vehicle. The sand there had melted to a solid sheet of brown glass and was hot to the touch. “We don't have a problem with infidel nations bombing Gaddafi,” one fighter, a heavily bearded man draped with ammunition, said, smiling as he expanded his carefully honed sense of realpolitik. “Gaddafi is an infidel himself, so why as good Muslims should we be concerned at having other infidels bomb him? We're happy with Britain and France for this!”

    The panic that must have followed this devastating attack just three hours earlier was clearly visible along either side of the road. Abandoned uniforms, weapons, ammunition stockpiles and rations littered the verges. Some of the cooking pots on the soldiers' campfires were still warm. Having fought only lightly armed rebels for the past month, the experience of airstrikes at the hands of the West had clearly hurled these units backwards in disarray. Strung out along hundreds of kilometres between Sirte and Benghazi, much of it in deeply hostile anti-Gaddafi territory, it is difficult to imagine how the fate of the colonel's forces in eastern Libya will be anything other than a disaster.

    But amidst the carnage, the smell, flame, smoke and blackened metal, the cheering rebels and the sweet fruits of their reward, some men at least kept their humanity. “They are Muslims, and we are Muslims,” said one fighter as he surveyed the devastated bodies of his foes. “We shall cover them and bury them with respect.”

    The experience of another rebel was an even more salutary reminder of what some of Gaddafi's troops have endured. “See that truck,” the man said to me, pointing out a multi-barrelled rocket launcher. Untouched by blast, it had been over-run by the advancing rebels a few hours earlier. “When we reached it we found the driver, one of Gaddafi's guys, still alive in the cab. He had been handcuffed to the steering wheel to stop him running away.”

    The Times

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/strikes-turn-tide-in-battle-for-benghazi/story-fn7ycml4-1226025191950

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:24 am

    But it does.

    It effects them but they will have no influence on the decisions being made.

    Lying is very intricate part of Politics.

    What happened to "Truth, Justice. and the American way!"?

    Seems to be the real slogan is "Lying, getting revenge, and oil."

    No, the problem is that there is not enough police. Which again means that if you think you can do better, step up.

    There is no police? Police are held accountable for their actions... US personel will not be tried for any action.


    The UN is the Police HQ. The UNSC is the police.

    The UN is a forum to talk and discuss international issues between states. The west has turned it into a rubber stamp factory to continue its imperialism... of course it is not about land grabbing anymore, they are now after resources like Oil.

    If that is so, do explain why we haven't nuked Moscow or Beijing.

    It is not so dumb as to think they would not nuke you right back. It is talks with Russia and Beijing and North Korea... they have nukes. With Afghanistan and Iraq and Kosovo it was regime change. It was regime change in Somalia too but they fought back and there was no pressing reason (oil) to stay.

    No, that's called the difference between Peaceful and Violent protests.

    A peaceful protest is lots of people with signs. A violent protest is where there are lots of people with signs, but also a few with helmets on and baseball bats and a few bottles and rocks to throw.

    When the large group of people have assault rifles, machine guns, and rocket launchers and man portable air defence missiles then it is called a civil war.

    In the first one you use police numbers to keep various factions apart and eventually they disperse. In the second one you use police to control the crowd and direct water cannon and tear gas and then move in with batons against those with helmets and baseball bats. In the third case you with draw the police and call in the army and order them to order the people in the crowd to drop their weapons and then order them to open fire on anyone holding a weapon.

    As I said, everyone are hypocrites, that doesn't make what we say wrong.

    It is very nice that the average person cares about the Libyan people, but as I tried to suggest... the people in power... the people making the decisions in the US and France and the UK and elsewhere couldn't care less for the people... they look at their maps by their geology departments that show the potential oil fields and they see an opportunity at Regime change... they have done it before.

    Those wars didn't end 2 years ago.

    Iraq and Afghanistan? They are two civil wars set to happen. The only question is what spark will set them off and how brightly will they burn and for how long.

    What are you talking about? They all appear on the news. Just because
    it's harder to find doesn't mean they aren't there. And seriously,
    again, we can't handle all your problems.

    So why start with Libya? Why not solve the problems in Bahrain? ...Ohhh that is right... there are no problems in Bahrain... unarmed civilians wanting more freedoms are being butchered by government forces... but the oil there is securely in the control of the west so nothing to see here boys... move on. Yemen? Yemen is a sh!t hole with no oil to speak of... so nothing to see there either.

    Please put some Lenin quote here. Something about good men stopping evil.

    Gadaffi has been in power for 40 years and the last few years we have had the west going in there and sucking his d!ck and getting sucked in return. But why buy milk when you can shoot the farmer and steal his cow? The west is not above cattle rustling.

    The future is some Utopia. It is nay sayers who through their nay
    saying, negate that. Imperialism should stop, if people don't want it to
    stop, it won't.

    Hahahahaha... China intervening in Tibet is Imperialism but the West adopting a policy or Regime change to get better access to oil reserves around the world is not?
    If you want imperialism to stop... tell the worst offender... YOUR GOVERNMENT!

    The future is some Utopia. It is nay sayers who through their nay
    saying, negate that. Imperialism should stop, if people don't want it to
    stop, it won't.

    Please tell me how democracy has failed in Russia? Tony BLiar and George Bush jnr, even Howard in Australia all got voted in for extra terms when they were clearly unpopular and doing things the majority didn't like. They got reelected because there was no better alternative. Yeah... that is democracy... having to pick the same bunch of useless liars because the alternative is even more incompetent.

    So would it be wrong to say that Palestinian suicide bombers represent
    the Palestinian people? Or would it be wrong to say that a friendly fire
    accident represents the entire branch of the military? No, it's not. A
    minority group is a minority group, don't take it's word.

    The US government is not a minority group. It represents all American citizens.

    And we know they're doing those things, we bitch and we cry but
    admittedly the number of quacks here are more than there are elsewhere,
    but progress in that field is slow.

    Why don't you sue? Sue the media first for not doing their job. Sue the government and opposition for basically being all the same.

    ...btw if any country in the world needs electoral reform it is the US. 300 million people and your elections take fricken 2 years! India has elections faster than you do.

    True, but to expand such the analogy, imagine the two smokers in a classroom of kids. Think about the children!

    When talking about states there are no children... and going on history the US is one of the youngest around...

    Although, while thinking about this analogy, it has occurred to me that
    the U.S. being 200 some odd years old and China being 4000 some odd
    years old, they, by default, are the more experienced smoker, but that
    still does not make it wrong for the smoker to tell the non-smoker that
    smoking is bad. It may be confrontational but it isn't the wrong thing
    to do.

    If China does not know what is right or wrong by now it will hardly listen to an upstart like the US... especially a US that is currently bombing the crap out of a country it claims it wants to help... well how many countries is that at the moment? Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan... that they admit to.

    Rhetorical question was rhetorical.

    Yeah... mention the words Carbon emissions and everything the US says is rhetorical...

    Apply for citizenship

    I am sure with the NSA monitoring electronic communications all these years I am probably very high on quite a few of their lists. I would say might arrival at any US controlled airport would result in me and the guy with the rubber glove getting into a relationship that I am quite frankly really not interested in... so no thanks.

    I prefer Survivorman over Bear Grylls however.

    Bear is a bit of a show pony, but when he bites into bloated insects and describes the taste as being like a mouth full of puss, I just have to laugh out loud and in relief that it is not me. I think squeasing the elephant turd for moisture... watching the yellow fluid dribble into his mouth was the worst... Laughing

    Sarko suprised the hell out of me.

    I have been quite surprised at how quickly the French have accepted the opposition and started firing the weapons there. Clearly Libya didn't want Mistrals...

    They showed footage of a Mig-23 going down in flames for which the rebels were celebrating. It was later revealed that it was a rebel Mig-23 flown by pilots that had defected to the rebel side.

    It is funny that the western media is calling these people rebels when ground forces are unarmed protesters.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:13 am

    French air strikes turn tide, but rebels still no match for Gaddafi.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:50 am

    ...hahahahaha... good old independent and unbiased BBC news...

    See near the end of that video where rebels (hmmm, I thought you had rebels in a civil war... I think they meant unarmed protesters) were advancing toward Gadafis forces and they ran... and the reporter suggests this is a violation of the ceasefire?

    I guess North Koreans should advance into South Korea and retake some more land... if the South Koreans or US try to fire on them then I guess they are violating the ceasefire and the UN should go in and bomb South Korea... Rolling Eyes

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:54 am

    GarryB wrote:...hahahahaha... good old independent and unbiased BBC news...

    See near the end of that video where rebels (hmmm, I thought you had rebels in a civil war... I think they meant unarmed protesters) were advancing toward Gadafis forces and they ran... and the reporter suggests this is a violation of the ceasefire?

    I guess North Koreans should advance into South Korea and retake some more land... if the South Koreans or US try to fire on them then I guess they are violating the ceasefire and the UN should go in and bomb South Korea... Rolling Eyes

    Clearly France wants the rebels to advance. They authored 1973 to define stopping Gaddafi forces while not defining rebels as being separate from Libyan people.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:28 am

    1973 was intended to protect unarmed civilians, not armed rebels.

    It clearly shows the intentional duplicity of the west... they can claim they have the worlds support with UNSC resolution 1973 because they interpret it as a rubber stamp to regime change, while the rest of the world sees it as a humanitarian action to prevent the use of military force against unarmed civilians.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:45 pm

    @GarryB
    I am sure with the NSA monitoring electronic communications all these years I am probably very high on quite a few of their lists. I would say might arrival at any US controlled airport would result in me and the guy with the rubber glove getting into a relationship that I am quite frankly really not interested in... so no thanks

    Get not caught. Be cautious we need you here.. Rolling Eyes
    This time its not the US but the France that is dragging UK & US in war..

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:15 pm

    Libya War: U.S. F-15 Jet Crashes, Fighting Rages On

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/libya-war-jet-crashes-fighting-rages_n_839029.html




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:55 am

    This time its not the US but the France that is dragging UK & US in war..

    The US is in the back ground pulling strings, but it is certainly France that is straining at the leash to get a piece of Gadaffi. Perhaps the fact that he has been stringing them along about purchases of Rafale that have done it...

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:38 pm

    A good one:
    http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-was-late-at-modernizing-air.html

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:12 pm

    NATO still split on taking over Libya operation

    Brussels -- NATO failed again to agree on Wednesday on taking over command of military operations against Muammar Qadhafi's forces in Libya from the United States, chiefly due to Turkish reservations, diplomats said.
    After ambassadors of the 28-nation alliance ended a third day of wrangling in Brussels without a deal, one senior NATO diplomat said: "No decision on anything."

    Turkey, a Muslim ally, said it did not want NATO to take responsibility for offensive operations that could cause civilian casualties or be in charge of enforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone while coalition aircraft were simultaneously bombing Libyan forces.

    "It would be impossible for us to share responsibility in an operation that some authorities have described as a 'crusade'," Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters in Ankara. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has used that term, as has Qadhafi.

    "It's important that the effort be gathered under one umbrella, and we will continue to negotiate until we achieve this. No one should make this out as Turkey is trying to block efforts, this is wrong...It may be a long night, but we will continue talks until Turkey's concerns are put to rest," Davutoglu said.

    A Turkish diplomat said talks would continue Thursday. One NATO source said Turkey wanted Western coalition countries to finish their air strikes before NATO took over command, so the alliance was not blamed for any accidents.

    Another source said the United States had wanted to transfer command to the alliance Saturday, a week after the start of operations, but that was likely to slip since NATO would need 72 hours to put the decision into practice.

    After four nights of air strikes, Gaddafi remained defiant, vowing that Western powers engaged in military action in Libya would "end up in the dustbin of history."

    POLITICAL DRESSING

    Washington, London and Paris agreed Tuesday that the alliance should play a key operational role, but the assent of all 28 NATO states is needed and they have also been split over whether NATO should exercise political control.

    "It's all about how you dress this up politically," a NATO source familiar with the negotiations said.

    http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/371917

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:11 am

    So moving into the Middle East is not enough and now NATO wants to move into Africa as well...

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:17 am

    GarryB wrote:So moving into the Middle East is not enough and now NATO wants to move into Africa as well...

    NATO? Its the United States and vassals to be honest Rolling Eyes

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:18 pm

    Is Russians supporting Libya covertly:

    http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/manpads-in-libya-worries-west.html

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:23 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:23 pm