no there is NOT. The proper expression would have to be for that case is "backass backwards"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Printable View
no there is NOT. The proper expression would have to be for that case is "backass backwards"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
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 Mark
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 BDunnell
I disagree, The No Fly zone that the first Bush put on Iraq was an unconditional success. When Bill succeeded him If Iraq abused itQuote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
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 Mr Alcatraz
who me? you must have me confused with someone else......Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Yeah after a major massive ground conflict that left the job very unfinished, but Saddam's army all shot to piecesQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
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.
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
The emphasis, there, I think should be on the last few words. In truth, the 1986 bombing of Libya perhaps did little good strategically.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
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
In those situations the president did not blow hot air about what others should do, or he was considering doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Correct or not, the president said such will happen, and it did.
We have the prattle and chief for a president, not surprising at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What he is missing is a brother named Billy.
[b]LOL]/b]Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Nice try bunky, but that analogy is absurd but funny.
It's at limes like this where I'm happy Mr Riebe is on my ignore list so I don't have to read his replies :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I ain't taking the bait :laugh: :s mokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
I am very happy to paraphrase if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
When you have the ability to change the government by democratic means then armed revolution become unnecessary.
Care to explain why it's absurd?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I would much have preferred it if he had vacillated for a bit rather than going in with a madly religious zeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Here's your "no fly zone". It's a way to be seen as doing something, while doing nothing. It's relatively clean, no boots on the ground, and safe for hi-tech western powers. The reality is that it won't keep Gaddafi from winning, something the rebels would have already done if they were actually a popular majority. Gaddafi will set up portable AA systems in neighborhoods, marketplaces, and schoolyards. They will paint the patroling aircraft with fire control radars which will cause the patrol aircraft to launch counter munitions. Next thing you know, Gaddafi will be on all the media feeds waving photos of civillians killed by no fly zone strikes. Sooner or later Gaddafi will get a pilot and parade him around until whatever nation bows to the goatherd and pulls out of the no fly club.
Stop this no fly crap and let Libya be.
OK, let us see- Dave said: 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The Libyans have the right to bear arms?
I know nothing of what ever they have for a constitution, but I would not bet money on it.
A well regulated militia?
Regulated maybe, but that is as far as their "militia" fits what Dave is referring to in the U.S. Constitution.
Beyond that the U.S. has a large National Guard, who (now Dave is dealing with maybe kinda-sorta think here) are not puppets of Washington. They legally are controlled by the Governor of each state.
It would be just as easy to vision in this fiction scenario Dave is trying to float, that the various National Guards would defend their home State and tell Washington to go to hell.
This would give any so called "militia" top level tanks and aircraft.
In reality Dave's analogy is simply absurd at face value. (That doee not even take into account the well armed part of the U.S. civilian population.)
I don't think you answered my earlier question — would you have argued 'let Iraq be' before 2003?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
just give the rebels surface to air shoulder fired munitions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...or-action.html
It's about effing time. I hope they bomb that sick ******* back into the Stone age.Quote:
The first raids, possibly conducted by unmanned drones, could happen within hours if Colonel Gaddafi acts on his threat to "show no mercy" to rebels in Benghazi.
The RAF could become involved in any operation by this evening, according to British sources. However, the raids may be spearheaded by an Arab nation such as Qatar or the UAE.
Last night, Col Gaddafi threatened to launch retaliation attacks against passenger aircraft in the Mediterranean if foreign countries launch air strikes against Libya.
Teddy Roosevelt is smiling in his grave, Walk softly but carry a big stick.
Hail Sarkosy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I was against the Iraq invasion completely. I didn't see Iraq as a threat to the USA then or now. I did support the UN removing Iraq from Kuwait after his invasion of that country.
the problem is they should have removed saddam the first time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
So, now there is this no fly zone over Libya about two weeks too late, do they expect Gaddafi to change his mind and stop what he's doing? I hope that the fireworks in Benghazi were not celebrating it's over just yet, I fear the worst :(
My apologies for doubting you. I am in full agreement on both counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
How much better that might have been for the world, not least in terms of the spread of anti-American feeling possibly being reduced by virtue of the 2003 campaign not being necessary, one can only speculate. Pity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
It might, in fairness, be able to stop some of what he's doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
It will tip the balance slightly away from Gadaffi's forces, however the rebels are still outgunned.
Was anyone else watching rolling news yesterday reminded of Chris Morris in The Day Today: "Yes..... it's WAR!"?
:s
[youtube]r3BO6GP9NMY[/youtube]
From about 2m30s.
Sad reflection on what our TV news has become.
If Gadaffi still wins, then what then?!
Taking away from the actual situation in the country, this will be a good test for the Typhoon. (A silly name as that's a Russian submarine!)
Good question. The objective on this UN Resolution is to ensure no violence (yeah, right) rather than to take sides. If Gaddafi can take control by peaceful means (again: yeah, right) then theoretically he should be free to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I can't help but think that this "no fly zone" will result in yet another long and bloody campaign with no strategy and no exit plan :s
Viz Iraq 1991-2003, unless Gaddafi is deposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
[quote="Dave B"]
But of course it will have the opposite effect. Before you had ground troops and an airforce vs only ground troops. The airforce has been taken out of the equation, which has levelled the playing field, but that will just lead to even more fierce fighting on the ground and quite probably more loss of life than if Gadaffi had been allowed to sweep to victory - not that this would have been a good thing of course.
No it is actually war, read the conditions it also includes any action that endangers non-combatants. Ghaddafi son just made a statement that it was a misunderstanding He has already made a staement saying he didn't mean to say he will kill anyone in his way. and only meant that he would encircle the city.It's really to bad for him because Hitlery ain't playing, And she is "one cold blooded piece of work") plus Sarkosy has got an itchy trigger finger. The colonel is Gone Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
Once he said he would open up on commercial airliners if there was outside influence he sealed the deal.
http://ansamed.biz/en/libia/news/ME.XEF65762.htmlQuote:
Emphatically he added that ''It is by bombarding the positions of his opposition, with the few dozen airplanes and helicopters truly available to him, that the Libyan dictator overturned the strength ratio. We could have and still can neutralise his air vehicles with targeted bombardments. It is what France and Great Britain have been proposing for weeks
Then we're getting back to the idea of regime change, which has had a miserable history!
Possibly. But it may also stop the flow of mercenaries that Gaddafi has been bringing in from Chad and elsewhere, who have apparently been making a significant contribution to the fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark