• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No Fly zones over Libya?

WildCat said:
Neither is Khadaffi's "army".

This is a tribal fight. No professional armies are involved.
Click to expand...

Not so. Until we bombed it the Khamis Brigade was a farily conventional and somewhat effective millitry unit. Sure it's not the largest army around but it meets any reasonable requires to be described as a professional army.
 
geni said:
Not so. Until we bombed it the Khamis Brigade was a farily conventional and somewhat effective millitry unit. Sure it's not the largest army around but it meets any reasonable requires to be described as a professional army.
Click to expand...
Professional armies don't change into street clothes the minute the lead starts to fly.
 
angrysoba said:
Yeah, I want Chavez to step in and offer Gadaffi a safe way out. I wonder why Chavez isn't going to do it?
Click to expand...

Gaddafi is unlikely to be interested. South american leaders come and go. So far Gaddafi has managed to outlast them all. Retirement in saudi arabia would be the usual option but they really don't like him very much. There are a few african leaders who probabaly owe him a favour but how long they would last is anybody's guess.
 
Obama is a liar and a betrayer.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)


senator Obama replies:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.


Nice Nobel Peace Prize, Obama.
 
Last edited:
egslim said:
The basic requirement for a ceasefire to work is you need armed forces who can receive and will obey such an order. The rebels certainly don't satisfy that requirement, and I doubt Gadaffi's forces do.
Click to expand...

Not sure how hard it would be to get a general cease-fire order out to the units in the field, but this is still an interesting point in light of Qohddaffee's command-and-control capabilities being specifically targeted in the bombing campaign.
 
geni said:
Retirement in saudi arabia would be the usual option but they really don't like him very much.
Click to expand...
Seeing as Khadaffi tried to assasinate Saudi Prince Abdullah I don't think retirement in SA is an option. Or it would be a very short retirement, until he loses his head.

geni said:
There are a few african leaders who probabaly owe him a favour but how long they would last is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...
Nah, all he has is Hugo.
 
WildCat said:
This is a tribal fight.
Click to expand...

You don't buy the 'pro-democracy forces' rhetoric?


Also, does anyone have a verbatim translation of Khadhafhi's speech where he said his forces would go house-to-house exterminating everyone? I've heard it referenced a couple of times but haven't actually read it yet.
 
UWdude said:
Obama is a liar and a betrayer.
Click to expand...

By and large, I agree with you, and I've been vocal about my criticism of Obama, though I'd still vote for Obama again because I think he's less of a liar and betrayer than anyone the GOP would nominate.
 
This whole 'coalition' intervention is beginning to have the wiff of a balls up. It's clear Obama isn't really that interested in the whole thing & wants to withdraw US involvement as much as possible (ie handing over operational control as soon as possible). No one else seems to have any strategic grip on what they're trying to achieve.

Personally, I was inclined to support a 'no fly zone' - ie park a few aircraft carriers in the Med & knock out any war planes Gadaffi put in the air but I'm very uneasy about cruise missiles & bombing attacks. This won't end well. :mad:
 
WildCat said:
Nah, all he has is Hugo.
Click to expand...

He has Mugabe. I'm not sure if I would call that an upside to his situation, though.

I think that a neutral state should offer him retirement. If he's allowed to leave his country in safety and live out the rest of his days in relative comfort he will be much less motivated to fight to the last. This won't satisfy a large number of rebels, that is true, but even justice is secondary to ending the civil war which risks turning Libya into another Somalia - only with oil to finance the war.

McHrozni
 
gtm said:
Personally, I was inclined to support a 'no fly zone' - ie park a few aircraft carriers in the Med & knock out any war planes Gadaffi put in the air but I'm very uneasy about cruise missiles & bombing attacks. This won't end well. :mad:
Click to expand...

It was explained several times that any no-fly zone will have to begin with an attack on Libyan air defence capabilities.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...no-fly-zone-would-mean-widespread-air-strikes

That was about two weeks before the UNSC vote.

McHrozni
 
gtm said:
Personally, I was inclined to support a 'no fly zone' - ie park a few aircraft carriers in the Med & knock out any war planes Gadaffi put in the air but I'm very uneasy about cruise missiles & bombing attacks. This won't end well. :mad:
Click to expand...
In that case you don't really support a no-fly zone, because step 1 of establishing a no-fly zone is to destroy/neutralize all anti-aircraft capabilities.
 
McHrozni said:
It was explained several times that any no-fly zone will have to begin with an attack on Libyan air defence capabilities.
Click to expand...

And what do tank convoys we have attacked (on their way, presumably, to attack rebel-held Benghazi) have to do with Libyan air defense capabilities?

The UN resolution and the US's actions have gone beyond enforcing a no-fly-zone. We have joined a civil war on the side of the rebels, even though we really don't know who they are or just what their intentions are.
 
Also, following statements by Obama that Gaddafi must leave now, it's difficult to believe there is not a regime-change mission here. Lieberman recently said that if it ends with Gaddafi still in power, the mission has failed.
 
I know Qaddafi is a bad guy, but I worry we have no *********** clue who these folks are who may take his place. This could end up being a horrible mistake.

:(
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Also, following statements by Obama that Gaddafi must leave now, it's difficult to believe there is not a regime-change mission here. Lieberman recently said that if it ends with Gaddafi still in power, the mission has failed.
Click to expand...
When did Lieberman become a spokesman for the Obama admin?
 
Thunder said:
I know Qaddafi is a bad guy, but I worry we have no *********** clue who these folks are who may take his place. This could end up being a horrible mistake.

:(
Click to expand...

As opposed to watching them get slaughtered and terrorized into submission. Then we'd know which side they're on. The dead and terrorized side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom