Libya no fly zone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Shame that Bush didn't have your much publicised foresight and wisdom before he led the charge into Iraq. Is there such an expression as "quarter-assed"? There is now.

---

no there is NOT. The proper expression would have to be for that case is "backass backwards"

Part of the problem of the no-fly zone is that we (NATO in general) is already heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan so moving assets away from there to police Libya - which no idea when they will be released is a big decision to take. And Mark is right about one thing in that if you are going to do it - you need to do it properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Part of the problem of the no-fly zone is that we (NATO in general) is already heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan so moving assets away from there to police Libya - which no idea when they will be released is a big decision to take. And Mark is right about one thing in that if you are going to do it - you need to do it properly.

---

I do agree with that, but what does 'properly' mean in the case of a no-fly zone? Shooting down a transport aircraft full of mercenary troops inbound from a neighbouring country, or full of arms inbound from Belarus? This would presumably be one of the tasks, if said aircraft refused to turn back, but it would bring with it the possibility of an international incident. And it's worth pointing out that any British involvement in policing a no-fly zone will involve our Eurofighter Typhoons being deployed on operations for the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I do agree with that, but what does 'properly' mean in the case of a no-fly zone? Shooting down a transport aircraft full of mercenary troops inbound from a neighbouring country, or full of arms inbound from Belarus? This would presumably be one of the tasks, if said aircraft refused to turn back, but it would bring with it the possibility of an international incident. And it's worth pointing out that any British involvement in policing a no-fly zone will involve our Eurofighter Typhoons being deployed on operations for the first time.

---

By properly I mean not just a couple of Tornado's overflying Tripoli a couple of times a day. I mean a full control of the skies with an instant challenge to anything that gets more than a few feet off the ground, this means deploying the likes of AWACS and having significant numbers of fighter aircraft in the air over Libya at all times. It's no small undertaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

no fly zones are useless. Period.

---

I disagree, The No Fly zone that the first Bush put on Iraq was an unconditional success. When Bill succeeded him If Iraq abused it
He would, and did just lob a cruise missile in their grill, and Saddam would get the picture.
But that was post war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

I disagree, The No Fly zone that the first Bush put on Iraq was an unconditional success. When Bill succeeded him If Iraq abused it
He would, and did just lob a cruise missile in their grill, and Saddam would get the picture.
But that was post war.

---

And, perhaps more importantly in terms of public perception, before the second Iraq conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Part of the problem of the no-fly zone is that we (NATO in general) is already heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan so moving assets away from there to police Libya - which no idea when they will be released is a big decision to take. And Mark is right about one thing in that if you are going to do it - you need to do it properly.

---

who me? you must have me confused with someone else......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

I disagree, The No Fly zone that the first Bush put on Iraq was an unconditional success. When Bill succeeded him If Iraq abused it
He would, and did just lob a cruise missile in their grill, and Saddam would get the picture.
But that was post war.

---

Yeah after a major massive ground conflict that left the job very unfinished, but Saddam's army all shot to pieces

But there was good public perception ("they we be doing something serious here, dude!!!) regardless of the reality.

Of course, the no fly rule did not stopp Saddam from doing all sorts of mayhem to the Kurds, and to other factions.....even when we would drop the occaisonal cruise missle up his snoot. If you want to do something serious, put a no-fly and a few cruise missles aimed towards him personal. When Regan was sending bombs literally through his front door, Kadaffy cooled down real quick................. for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Yeah after a major massive ground conflict that left the job very unfinished, but Saddam's army all shot to pieces

But there was good public perception ("they we be doing something serious here, dude!!!) regardless of the reality.

---

And it is debatable as to whether the Iraqi air force could have been that active even without the no-fly zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

When Regan was sending bombs literally through his front door, Kadaffy cooled down real quick................. for a while.

---

The emphasis, there, I think should be on the last few words. In truth, the 1986 bombing of Libya perhaps did little good strategically.

At the risk of going off on a massive tangent, the situation in Libya is an interesting exercise in what happens when the people who - having a right to bear arms - form themselves into a well regulated militia and attempt to overthrow their government. It doesn't look like it will end well.

Now imagine that the government you're trying to overthrow isn't one with a handful of aging fighter jets and some hired guerrillas, but one which is backed up by some of the biggest armed forces on the planet. :s