No Fly zones over Libya?

[DanishDynamite]

Not having a "No-Fly" zone would have been best, but as the protesters started getting shelled by their own army, the "No-Fly" zone turned out to be a good idea. Ghaddafi's air power is now dead, but the protesters are still just fighting tanks with whatever captured rifles they can get.

What's the latest news regarding properly arming these guys?

 

[Laeke]

What's the latest news regarding properly arming these guys?

It seems pretty well accepted that Egypt is supplying small weapons to them. Perhaps other countries.

But "arming them", even without adressing the political issue (this is definitely not what the UN resolution advocates), falls short on two accounts:

- Giving them small arms is, I guess, possible, but you don't ship rocket launchers or even worse, armored vehicles, just like that.

- It's not like it would do them a lot of good: all reports seems to indicate that a large part of the insurgents have basic military training at best. I read stuff about guys using RPG for the first time of their existence during live combat. And it's not like we have the time to train them properly either. It is not (yet?) a guerilla warfare in the mountains waged by war-hardened veterans or something, it's a civil war in a very flat desert. No points giving them anything other than small arms and ammo, really...

- Starting to supply weapons left and right to a nebular and non organized rebellion is not, by experience, the best course of action.

 

[little grey rabbit]

It seems pretty well accepted that Egypt is supplying small weapons to them. Perhaps other countries.

But "arming them", even without adressing the political issue (this is definitely not what the UN resolution advocates), falls short on two accounts:

- Giving them small arms is, I guess, possible, but you don't ship rocket launchers or even worse, armored vehicles, just like that.

- It's not like it would do them a lot of good: all reports seems to indicate that a large part of the insurgents have basic military training at best. I read stuff about guys using RPG for the first time of their existence during live combat. And it's not like we have the time to train them properly either. It is not (yet?) a guerilla warfare in the mountains waged by war-hardened veterans or something, it's a civil war in a very flat desert. No points giving them anything other than small arms and ammo, really...

- Starting to supply weapons left and right to a nebular and non organized rebellion is not, by experience, the best course of action.

Perhaps we could offer them suicide vests? As by all accounts a signficant portion of them have been well trained in the use of those.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It seems pretty well accepted that Egypt is supplying small weapons to them. Perhaps other countries.

But "arming them", even without adressing the political issue (this is definitely not what the UN resolution advocates), falls short on two accounts:

- Giving them small arms is, I guess, possible, but you don't ship rocket launchers or even worse, armored vehicles, just like that.

- It's not like it would do them a lot of good: all reports seems to indicate that a large part of the insurgents have basic military training at best. I read stuff about guys using RPG for the first time of their existence during live combat. And it's not like we have the time to train them properly either. It is not (yet?) a guerilla warfare in the mountains waged by war-hardened veterans or something, it's a civil war in a very flat desert. No points giving them anything other than small arms and ammo, really...

- Starting to supply weapons left and right to a nebular and non organized rebellion is not, by experience, the best course of action.

Good Grief. The No-Fly zone was a minimum step to reduce the slaughter of simple protesters by a mechanized army. The playing field is completely uneven. It doesn't take a lot of training to fire a Stinger and I suspect the equivalent "fire and forget" tank destroyer requires just the same.

The protesters are ready and willing. All they lack are weapons to level the playing field.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Good Grief. The No-Fly zone was a minimum step to reduce the slaughter of simple protesters by a mechanized army. The playing field is completely uneven. It doesn't take a lot of training to fire a Stinger and I suspect the equivalent "fire and forget" tank destroyer requires just the same.

The protesters are ready and willing. All they lack are weapons to level the playing field.

Yeah! Civil War rocks! Wasn't Afghanistan really awesome?

We are the Liberal Humanitarians and we spread our enlightened blessings around the world like the dew from heaven! We Liberal Humanitarians just about wet ourselves laughing when we slipped that part in about a "ceasefire" in the Security Resolution.....as if!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yeah! Civil War rocks! Wasn't Afghanistan really awesome?

We are the Liberal Humanitarians and we spread our enlightened blessings around the world like the dew from heaven! We Liberal Humanitarians just about wet ourselves laughing when we slipped that part in about a "ceasefire" in the Security Resolution.....as if!

This appears to be sarcasm, but I don't see your point. Could you explain?

 

[Laeke]

Good Grief. The No-Fly zone was a minimum step to reduce the slaughter of simple protesters by a mechanized army. The playing field is completely uneven.

Maybe it is merely minimum but that was the best that the coalition pushing for intervention could possibly get, diplomatic-wise. And even that is called into question.

It doesn't take a lot of training to fire a Stinger and I suspect the equivalent "fire and forget" tank destroyer requires just the same.

Stinger is an anti-aerial weapon, isnt it?
I lack expertise but my understanding is that weapons efficient against armored vehicles actually do take some skill & training. The soviet RPG-7 is a very rudimentary tool to do the task, and requires to engage at a fairly low range, if I am not mistaken. Young people with little to no military training amidst a civil war will have troubles achieving any sort of results.
I'm not sure operating artillery (anti-tank) is that easy, either. Anything bigger is not even conceivable.

The protesters are ready and willing. All they lack are weapons to level the playing field.

They may be willing and ready in spirits, but their lack of success in the current counter-attack with no planes to worry about and more or less direct support from the coalition is evidence, according to the observers on site, that they are not experienced and organized enough to do it. No amount of weapons we could reasonably send there would change that.

Supplying heavy weapons, or even small arms en masse would be clearly contrary to the UN resolution that we are already bending as far as possible to give support from the air.

I said in earlier messages that a stalemate was possible. As it stands, we did save the rebels. And we've gone as far as we could go, within the political limits that were put on this action and are still true today.

 

[Pardalis]

Now that NATO has taken over the no-fly zone, I wonder how JJ will spin this to blame America for it.

 

[little grey rabbit]

This appears to be sarcasm, but I don't see your point. Could you explain?

No, this is sarcasm:

It appears the democratic uprising is going to provide an excellent improvement in justice and human rights in Benghazi.

Already they have managed to uncover the killer of Yvonne Fletcher - and hardly surprisingly, he looks rather African (as opposed to Arab)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rebels-...and-suspected-mercenaries-20110324-1c8ly.html

Most said they were from Chad and Mali, but some were born in Ghana, Niger and Sudan.

Whether the men had served as Colonel Gaddafi's mercenaries was impossible to verify.

''I am working as a taxi driver and last week my car was stopped and I was arrested and then beaten,'' said Ali Hassan, 23, from Ghana. ''I am not a mercenary. This is a lie.''

......
After all the prisoners in the courtyard were led back to their cells, the rebel guards presented one of their most prized captures: Omar al-Sudani.

A professor of public health at Garyounis University, he was allegedly involved in the killing of the British officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.

Mr Mohammed said it was Professor Sudani who had fired the fatal shot from inside the embassy compound.[/quote]

Well this is good news, I fully expect the insurgents to have fully explained the Lockerbie attack by the end of next week. We have definitely bringing to power an excellent new regime.

Hurrah for us!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Maybe it is merely minimum but that was the best that the coalition pushing for intervention could possibly get, diplomatic-wise. And even that is called into question.

Indeed.

Stinger is an anti-aerial weapon, isnt it?
I lack expertise but my understanding is that weapons efficient against armored vehicles actually do take some skill & training. The soviet RPG-7 is a very rudimentary tool to do the task, and requires to engage at a fairly low range, if I am not mistaken. Young people with little to no military training amidst a civil war will have troubles achieving any sort of results.
I'm not sure operating artillery (anti-tank) is that easy, either. Anything bigger is not even conceivable.

In short, you know as little in that area as I do.

They may be willing and ready in spirits, but their lack of success in the current counter-attack with no planes to worry about and more or less direct support from the coalition is evidence, according to the observers on site, that they are not experienced and organized enough to do it. No amount of weapons we could reasonably send there would change that.

Good grief! The protesters lack of success in countering an organizeed mechanized army is only evidence of the simple fact that they need heavy weapons! They need a level playing field!

Supplying heavy weapons, or even small arms en masse would be clearly contrary to the UN resolution that we are already bending as far as possible to give support from the air.

Explain to me exactly where the UN Resolution would be "bent" to allow this.

I said in earlier messages that a stalemate was possible. As it stands, we did save the rebels. And we've gone as far as we could go, within the political limits that were put on this action and are still true today.

Benghazi was saved by the immediate action of the coalition. The "rebels" were not and cannot be saved, except by being armed enough to counter an actual army.

 

[Laeke]

Now that NATO has taken over the no-fly zone, I wonder how JJ will spin this to blame America for it.

You're not trying very hard. NATO was at its origin and still largely is a military alliance dominated by Western countries. American participation is still the backbone of it. And the NATO involvement in Libya should be "piloted" through political reunions with the governements engaged, and of course the US, UK and France will be there.
So really, if you're going for this type of rhetoric, NATO and Western Imperialists are synonymous.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No, this is sarcasm:

It appears the democratic uprising is going to provide an excellent improvement in justice and human rights in Benghazi.

Already they have managed to uncover the killer of Yvonne Fletcher - and hardly surprisingly, he looks rather African (as opposed to Arab)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rebels-...and-suspected-mercenaries-20110324-1c8ly.html

I was being generous last time, attempting to understand your scribbles. This time, I give up. I have no idea what you are talking about.

......
After all the prisoners in the courtyard were led back to their cells, the rebel guards presented one of their most prized captures: Omar al-Sudani.

A professor of public health at Garyounis University, he was allegedly involved in the killing of the British officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.

Mr Mohammed said it was Professor Sudani who had fired the fatal shot from inside the embassy compound.

Well this is good news, I fully expect the insurgents to have fully explained the Lockerbie attack by the end of next week. We have definitely bringing to power an excellent new regime.

Hurrah for us!

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you explain in simple language?

 

[DanishDynamite]

You're not trying very hard. NATO was at its origin and still largely is a military alliance dominated by Western countries. American participation is still the backbone of it. And the NATO involvement in Libya should be "piloted" through political reunions with the governements engaged, and of course the US, UK and France will be there.
So really, if you're going for this type of rhetoric, NATO and Western Imperialists are synonymous.

Are you related to "little grey rabbit"? Sorry to ask, but you make no sense at all, which is similar to him.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Are you related to "little grey rabbit"? Sorry to ask, but you make no sense at all, which is similar to him.

Have you ever considered that it may just be you are out of your intellectual depth here? Both me and Laecke are saying quite straightforward things and coming from very different positions.

You are going to have a frustrating time and frustrate other users, if you keep running around saying "I don't understand. This is over my head. Make it simpler"

 

[Laeke]

In short, you know as little in that area as I do.

Well, I didn't believe that I was making an unreasonable statement by saying that doing war, especially using complex heavy weapons, benefited from proper training, since it seems agreed by all nations in the world having a standing army and specialized corps.
Or that untrained, inexperienced men would suffer tremendously in battle without psychological preparation, thus reducing even further their efficiency, according to Clausewitz, and pretty much any military expert since then.
(Sorry for the snarky tone)

While some soldiers defected to the rebellion (where their involvement is cast into doubt, as I pointed in an earlier message), the bulk of the forces are untrained, unorganized, uncoordinated. There is no way or no time currently to change that.

You mentioned Stingers, but Afghanistan (or Vietnam, by the way), your two text-books assymetric conflicts, were very different:
- There was a lot of guerilla going on, a type of war less "intense"
- Afghanis and Vietnameses gained or had considerable experience through many years of non-stop war.

I do not believe we can supply enough weapons to make the situation even (material and political limitations), I am not convinced that it would be the tie breaker if we could do so, because of the lack of training and organization.

Good grief! The protesters lack of success in countering an organizeed mechanized army is only evidence of the simple fact that they need heavy weapons! They need a level playing field!

They maybe do need it but we cannot make it happen through weapons supply (as per my previous point).

Explain to me exactly where the UN Resolution would be "bent" to allow this.

Please allow me to elaborate:
- The UN Resolution states that we must enforce a NFZ, protect civilians and obtain a ceasefire. Openly supplying weapons (heavy ones at that, not exactly very discrete) to one side of the conflict would be the exact opposite of the stated goal, don't you agree?
- We are already bending the resolution because we all know that the coalition is helping the insurgency and we do not seem to pressure them into a ceasefire. The airstrikes got some flak from other countries and it is not impossible that the coalition will have further limitations on its action.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Have you ever considered that it may just be you are out of your intellectual depth here? Both me and Laecke are saying quite straightforward things and coming from very different positions.

You are going to have a frustrating time and frustrate other users, if you keep running around saying "I don't understand. This is over my head. Make it simpler"

I don't understand. Please try to make your point using simple language.

 

[little grey rabbit]

More things for Danish Dynamite to not understand

The sacked Russian ambassador to Libya gives his opinion

He denied rumours that he wrote a telegram to Medvedev calling him a traitor, but said: "I wrote a telegram in which I underlined that I represent the interests of Russia in Libya. Recently, our countries have aimed at close co-operation, and it is not in the interests of Russia to lose such a partner."

He added: "Russian companies have signed very advantageous contracts for billions of euros for several years ahead that could be lost or have already been lost. In a certain way, that can be considered a betrayal of Russia's interests."

Russia abstained last week during the UN security council vote which approved military intervention in Libya.

Chamov, who was reportedly greeted at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport by Russian nationalists bearing bunches of flowers, declined to comment on Medvedev personally.

However, he said Gaddafi was "a very adequate person" and, when asked to comment on Putin's Crusades comment, he replied: "Vladimir Vladimirovich, and this is something I particularly like about him, gave a very precise, short and profound definition. And here, I think, he is not far from the truth."

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well, I didn't believe that I was making an unreasonable statement by saying that doing war, especially using complex heavy weapons, benefited from proper training, since it seems agreed by all nations in the world having a standing army and specialized corps.
Or that untrained, inexperienced men would suffer tremendously in battle without psychological preparation, thus reducing even further their efficiency, according to Clausewitz, and pretty much any military expert since then.
(Sorry for the snarky tone)

While some soldiers defected to the rebellion (where their involvement is cast into doubt, as I pointed in an earlier message), the bulk of the forces are untrained, unorganized, uncoordinated. There is no way or no time currently to change that.

You mentioned Stingers, but Afghanistan (or Vietnam, by the way), your two text-books assymetric conflicts, were very different:
- There was a lot of guerilla going on, a type of war less "intense"
- Afghanis and Vietnameses gained or had considerable experience through many years of non-stop war.

I do not believe we can supply enough weapons to make the situation even (material and political limitations), I am not convinced that it would be the tie breaker if we could do so, because of the lack of training and organization.

You do not think that arming the protesters, who must fight againt tanks and artillery, with heavy weapons will help make the playing field even. I see.

They maybe do need it but we cannot make it happen through weapons supply (as per my previous point).

Please allow me to elaborate:
- The UN Resolution states that we must enforce a NFZ, protect civilians and obtain a ceasefire. Openly supplying weapons (heavy ones at that, not exactly very discrete) to one side of the conflict would be the exact opposite of the stated goal, don't you agree?
- We are already bending the resolution because we all know that the coalition is helping the insurgency and we do not seem to pressure them into a ceasefire. The airstrikes got some flak from other countries and it is not impossible that the coalition will have further limitations on its action.

Openly supplying the protestors (civilians) with heavy weapons would obviously not be counter to the UN resolution.

 

[DanishDynamite]

More things for Danish Dynamite to not understand

The sacked Russian ambassador to Libya gives his opinion

And?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Openly supplying the protestors (civilians) with heavy weapons would obviously not be counter to the UN resolution.

The strange thing is, since the word civilians seems to recently have been completely redefined, you are probably right.