• UK and "senior NATO officers" seek approval from member states to oust Gaddafi regime
    13 replies, posted
[release][list][*]The British Prime Minister, Defence Secretary, Chief of the Defence Staff "and other senior NATO officers" all agree that NATO needs to intensify its bombing campaign in Libya by targeting the regime itself, and that regime change should be the goal of the campaign. [*]The Chief of the Defence Staff says this change is 'legitimate', and that NATO is currently seeking approval from its member states to expand the operation. [*]NATO's current role in Libya is to protect civilians by destroying units which threaten civilian-populated areas. The proposal is to also target government buildings, infrastructure and forces outside rebel-held territories.[/list][/release] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8514034/Nato-must-target-Gaddafi-regime-says-Armed-Forces-chief-Gen-Sir-David-Richards.html[/url] [quote=Telegraph]Gen Richards and other senior Nato officers want backing from member states to intensify the war effort by directly targeting Col Gaddafi's regime, rather than simply protecting Libyan civilians. [i][...][/i] "The Prime Minister and I are on the same page. We are in total agreement that the only solution to this conflict is for Gaddafi to go."[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13402945[/url] [quote=BBC News][b]The Defence Secretary Liam Fox says he agrees with the head of the Armed Forces that Nato needs to intensify its campaign in Libya.[/b] [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8514034/Nato-must-target-Gaddafi-regime-says-Armed-Forces-chief-Gen-Sir-David-Richards.html]General Sir David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph[/url] direct attacks should be launched against the infrastructure propping up Colonel Gaddafi's regime. He said it was necessary to prevent the Libyan dictator remaining in power. But the UN's under-secretary general for humanitarian relief called for a temporary cessation of hostilities. Baroness Amos, the UN's under-secretary for humanitarian relief, said there was an urgent need for an end to the conflict and she was concerned that "any upscaling" in the fighting would have a significant impact on innocent civilians. Speaking to Radio 4's The World This Weekend, she said: "Of course there is a military imperative. Of course there is a political aspect to it. But there are others who are working on those aspects. My job is to make sure that we all remember that it is the innocent people who are suffering and that we need a political solution as quickly as we can." The UK and other countries have been bombing Libya under a UN resolution authorising force to protect civilians. The Security Council resolution authorises "all necessary measures" to protect civilians under threat of attack - short of an occupying force. The views of Gen Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, are said to be supported by other senior Nato officers. They argue increasing the range of targets from direct threats such as tanks and command sites would be legitimate, but would require the backing of member states. [b]'Within rules'[/b] But in the interview with the Telegraph, Gen Richards said it would be "within the rules" should he be killed in a strike on a command and control centre. He said the "vice is closing on Gaddafi but we need to increase the pressure further through more intense military action". He said: "The military campaign to date has been a significant success for Nato and our Arab allies. But we need to do more. "If we do not up the ante now there is a risk that the conflict could result in Gaddafi clinging to power. "At present, Nato is not attacking infrastructure targets in Libya. But if we want to increase the pressure on Gaddafi's regime then we need to give serious consideration to increasing the range of targets we can hit." Gen Richards added there had been "hardly any civilian casualties as a result of the extreme care Nato has taken in the selection of bombing targets". [b]Legitimate target[/b] Defence Secretary Liam Fox said there had already been an extension of the targeting in Libya. He told the BBC's Politics Show: "We were very clear, it's acceptable to destroy the tanks and military vehicles of Gaddafi if they're directly threatening the civilian population, it's legitimate to degrade the command and control and intelligence networks of the regime which are used to control those forces and provide that threat. "So we've increasingly been dealing with static targets rather than the moving targets like tanks. "We have always taken this view that command is a legitimate target to hit on the ground, not all our Nato partners take the same view, but we have always done so." But former Nato commander Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who was involved in setting up two no-fly zones over Iraq said the military plan had been made too hastily. "I've always thought it's been a one step at a time, make it up as you go along strategy. That's simply not good enough in the modern world," he said. "We have to think in political and military terms at the end state, rather than actually taking one step at a time." The comments come as a Nato official said it was aware of Libyan state media reports that as many as 11 clerics were killed in its strike on the town of Brega but insisted that a "clearly identified" military command and control site had been targeted. Meanwhile, Col Gaddafi has taunted Nato troops in an audio message on state TV, saying he was in a place where they "cannot reach" him. Col Gaddafi's removal is not a specified military objective of the action.[/quote]
Alright, time to get the ban-hammer out and end this thing.
This'll be interesting, to say the least. There's a few ways this might go arse-up.
I think we're starting to ignore the UN.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;29842728]I think we're starting to ignore the UN.[/QUOTE]The mission in Libya only went ahead because the UN gave permission for it. China and Russia will no doubt argue this exceeds the mandate, but at this point I don't think there's much they can do to stop it. It'll make them a hell of a lot more resistant to any future interventions in the Arab Spring, though.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;29842728]I think we're starting to ignore the UN.[/QUOTE] Starting? Does anyone still listen to the UN?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29842757]The mission in Libya only went ahead because the UN gave permission for it. China and Russia will no doubt argue this exceeds the mandate, but at this point I don't think there's much they can do to stop it. It'll make them a hell of a lot more resistant to any future interventions in the Arab Spring, though.[/QUOTE] Technically getting rid of Gaddafi would not go beyond the mandate, in my uneducated opinion. They could easily argue (and probably would be correct) that with Gaddafi in power civilians are [B]always[/B] going to be at risk. Possibly even more so if NATO just gets up and leaves with him in power still.
[QUOTE=Jsm;29842978]Technically getting rid of Gaddafi would not go beyond the mandate, in my uneducated opinion. They could easily argue (and probably would be correct) that with Gaddafi in power civilians are [B]always[/B] going to be at risk. Possibly even more so if NATO just gets up and leaves with him in power still.[/QUOTE]Agreed; I don't share Russia or China's opinion on this matter, suffice to say. I would be rather disappointed if the rebels weren't the ones to find, convict and execute Gaddafi, though.
Give him hell, boys!
For all I know NATO has every right to invade Libya and fuck Gaddafi and his forces up since he declared war on Italy
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;29843341]For all I know NATO has every right to invade Libya and fuck Gaddafi and his forces up since he declared war on Italy[/QUOTE] Yeah but no takes his declarations of war seriously, Libya has been at war with Switzerland for like 2 years now. If NATO really wanted to fuck shit up there's many events that have happened recently that could allow them to use the "collective defence" thing against Libya (for example, just last week Libyan forces opened fire on a British warship, although it was inside Libyan waters)
[QUOTE=Jsm;29843494]If NATO really wanted to fuck shit up there's many events that have happened recently that could allow them to use the "collective defence" thing against Libya (for example, just last week Libyan forces opened fire on a British warship, although it was inside Libyan waters)[/QUOTE] I'm not sure it counts when you're already attacking the country...
[QUOTE=smurfy;29846983]I'm not sure it counts when you're already attacking the country...[/QUOTE] I was thinking this, you can hardly claim someone is attacking you when you have spent the past months bombing the shit out of their country.
I say do it, Gaddafi is a dick tator :downsrim:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.