Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
I still don't understand why we have to be sending our combat aircraft for a police action which the Middle Eastern air forces can handle themselves.
FFS,four Middle Eastern air forces including two neighbours of Libya have at least 800 modern combat aircraft comprising:
1.)319 F16 fighters including Block 50 and Block 60 versions.
2.)at least 237 F15 fighters
3.)86 Mirage 2000 fighters
4.)111 Tornadoes
5.)24 Typhoons
6.)69 Mig29 fighters
7.)44 Su24 attack aircraft
8.)28 Su30 fighters
9.)5 K3 and 8 E2C AWAC aircraft
10.)8 KE3A tanker aircraft
The main problem is command and control and the integration of other non-NATO airforces. NATO has massive experience from Boznia, GW1, no-fly zone from 1993-2003 over Iraq, to CAS over Afghanistan. It's set up do do what it does.
Integrating Arab aircraft into that is probably difficult - they would in the case of non-Egyptian forces have to base outside of their home countries which is difficult politically and logistically.
I doubt there is anything like the joint command and control structure needed anywhere in the Arab world let alone the ability to project that power over a thousand miles away. They don't have TLAM (as far as I'm aware) and I doubt enough reconnaissance resources to find what they need to hit in the first place.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
The resolution gives UN forces leave to take out air and ground units attacking civilians.
The way I read it, it's a fair bit wider than than just taking out those actually attacking. It says "all means necessary", short of invasion, to "protect civilians". That could, IMHO, be argued to include, for instance, destroying staging points, cutting supply lines and perhaps even bombing home bases or taking out ground assets like command and control centres or what, if I remember correctly, the US used to call "National Command Authority", i.e. the President .... in this case, ol' nutjob himself.
It seems to me that the resolution itself is pretty broad. For instance, it doesn't say "no ground troops", it says "short of invasion". So, define "invasion"? Are "advisers" an invasion? Are special forces providing targeting assistance or intel "invasion"? Etc.
I'm sure some people would argue that one single soldier is an invasion, but others would argue that it's mass troop movements, and what's going to matter is what those wanting to take a particular step can convince others it means, in terms of what they can or cannot do within that mandate. I doubt it is accidental that the UN mandate is phrased in such carefully ambiguous terms either, and it sure does seem to leave quite a few options open, if the military and diplomatic consensus will go for it, because I get the distinct impression that there is no appetite for serious long-term involvement on the ground from any of the international community, and especially from the US, the role of whom is still very vague, to the point of it not being clear if their aircraft will be, or indeed, need to be involved.
I suspect that not having the US in the lead will go down well in the US, and Obama can say, quite rightly, that's it's primarily an African problem, and seeing as Europe is sitting on Libya's doorstep, partially a European one, and the US not being the prime actor will also go down well in the Arab world, where the US is not exactly, erm, loved by all. It's just a shame Cameron couldn't keep the UK's bootprints off of it as well. It'd be nice to see this led, perhaps by France and the Arab League countries.
I suspect the US has to be involved, at least to the point of providing support, and that's at least as much for diplomatic reasons as anything, making it clear to Gaddafi that the rest of those taking action aren't doing it against the wishes of the US. And, that statement about three US submarines in the area ready to participate makes me wonder about the possibility of cruise missile strikes and if so, against what, or whom? I bet Gaddafi is back to sleeping in a different tent, somewhere in the desert, every night.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TooNice
I think that the public should be consulted, though I am not so sure that it would be a one sided opinion between "None of our business" nor the "Doing the right thing".
But regarding the oil, it -is- everyone's business in the foreseeable future. How much of the population will suddenly change their mind were oil price rise 10, 20, or 50%?
Besides, do the US/UK/et al. help themselves with the natural resource as they will once a resemblance of order is established? Or do they negotiate with the new government?
Of course its in our interests, I just wish they'd be honest about it.
Sitting there banging on about the humanity of all as if they give a rats ass. They don't and the hypocrisy annoys me.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
International diplomacy. I am afraid that every countries will play the same game, and I suspect (regretfully) that honestly doesn't pay in this instance: pacifying members of the public who wants them to be honest vs the open wrath of the international community (and the more saintly members of the public)? In the name of self-preservation, there is only one sensible choice. Sure, we, the public, as well as the international community can accuse our government to hide their motive, but we have squat hard evidence that the motive is what we accuse them of. Go ahead and say it, and you remove whatever all benefit of doubt.
Besides, as self-serving as humankind might be, we aren't beyond helping those in need every now and then (e.g. aids toward recent victims of natural disasters). I could believe that (even?) politicians do give a "rats ass". Perhaps not a whole lot more, and certainly not enough to use public fund to act on it were there not be some tangible benefits in return, but enough that they can say what they say and genuinely claim that they aren't lying ;)
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
If only they were so supportive in helping restore democracy in Zimbabwe. Oh wait, theres no oil there!
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
I know, it just irritates me a lot :)
Ach the whole thing even in the wider sense irritates me a lot, but I'm a lot grumpier than usual this morning so shall refrain from letting fly about the whole FUBAR situation, not least because grumpy>rational thinking.
/deep breaths
//get through the day
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
I know exactly what you mean roach. Watching 'call me dave' outside number 10 all puffed up letting out bilge as to why its right we are there just makes you sick. Its not like we don't know the real intent. The wikileaks exposed the previous goverments megrahi deal and this is just us protecting our interests as usual. Oil rules all currencies and with the price of fuel at the moment anything to go by the goverment must be desperate to ensure stable supplies for fear of their own rebellion back home.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
whats really funny is he said its different this time, we know what we are doing, lol how many times have governments said that? i'll tell you all the time.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
My issue is with the outright lying to the UN from Gaddafi's ministers - *repeatedly* insisting they've instituted a country wide ceasefire, when BBC journalists are on the ground confirming rebel reports that this is total hogwash!
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
[devils advocate]
Is it that simple? Can either side prove who opened up first?
I very much doubt a(ny) cease-fire extends to taking and then ignoring enemy fire.
Sure, the current regime there isn't known for truthful words - yet it would be foolhardy to take the word of the other side at face value - there's nothing to say they're not playing the media into pressing UN involvement by goading the enemy forces to respond.
[/devils advocate]
^^ That may not be true, but as the well known phrase goes: "The first casualty in war is the truth"
I try not to be quick to judge, civil wars are the dirtiest wars of all, I have zero doubt both sides are doing horrible, horrible things.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
It seems the war is costing us £3 million every day:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-2249628.html
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
It's okay, they're saving 2k a year per office by turning the lights off ;)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ty-afghanistan
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
And they put VAT up - that will help wage the war on terror OOPS i mean gadafi!
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
I wonder if any of the ME countries will absorb some of the cost of this "world police **** yeah" action? ;)
Edit!!
It seems the Royal Saudi Air Force and Egyptian Air Force both have more combat aircraft ATM than the RAF. We have around 200 Tornadoes and Typhoons it seems.
Perhaps they can take over now we have reconnoitred most of the Libyan air space and destroyed most of their air force(if you can call it that),their air defence force and C3 abilities.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
neonplanet40
And they put VAT up - that will help wage the war on terror OOPS i mean gadafi!
Of course when we have our new fangled CTOL carriers(which the RN have been hankering over for decades now since they retired the last ones) we can "world police **** yeah" in 2X speed!
Shame we probably won't be able to afford even the aircraft for one carrier.
Re: Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'
BBC embarassing itself yet again. It must think the majority are idiots...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lz...layer_embedded
Notice the flag? It's the Indian national flag. That most definitely is not Tripoli!