Libyan 'War' Megathread - Any news pertaining to surgical strikes is to be posted HERE
1,053 replies, posted
Surely a 'delivery' plane could accidentally 'drop' some of it's equipment in Benghazi or where-ever the rebels need them.
Hilary Clinton: "It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels[/url]
I say give the rebels more ammo; thats all they need to keep fighting.
[QUOTE=smurfy;28878556]Hilary Clinton: "It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels[/url][/QUOTE]
Interesting interpretation, I just heard this on the news and thought to my self that it can't possibly be legal. But I assume the US Government have some good lawyers who can understand these things.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28877355]2010: UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt has told the BBC he doubts that arming the rebels would be legal. "There is an arms embargo in place which states are observing," he said. "We want to ensure that everything that is done in relation to this intervention is legal. That is why we are sticking so closely to the terms of the UN resolution."
There's that idea out the window them.
(Doing it above board anyway)[/QUOTE]
Just don't do what the British did in the 80s and give the Mujahideen training and weapons. Which many of them became part of the Al Qaeda, and using that against us.
[QUOTE=Rage.;28879960]Just don't do what the British did in the 80s and give the Mujahideen training and weapons. Which many of them became part of the Al Qaeda, and using that against us.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure it was the Americans mainly doing that.
[QUOTE=Rage.;28879960]Just don't do what the British did in the 80s and give the Mujahideen training and weapons. Which many of them became part of the Al Qaeda, and using that against us.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the American's did that.
If the Americans are going to give weapons to them, perhaps they should NOT give them stingers. Every time they have done that in the past its come back to bite them in the ass.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28880042]Pretty sure the American's did that.
If the Americans are going to give weapons to them, perhaps they should NOT give them stingers. Every time they have done that in the past its come back to bite them in the ass.[/QUOTE]
You mean it came back to sting them in the ass?
[QUOTE=Coffee;28880055]You mean it came back to sting them in the ass?[/QUOTE]
That pun was just terrible.
Well yes, it was both sides, just said British because it's probably us that will do it again, hopefully we're careful.
But yes, mainly Americans, still find it quite crazy how they trained Osama Bin Laden.
Could someone give me a quick tl;dr on this week's happenings please?
Thanks in advance
[QUOTE=Rage.;28880124]Well yes, it was both sides, just said British because it's probably us that will do it again, hopefully we're careful.
But yes, mainly Americans, still find it quite crazy how they trained Osama Bin Laden.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the possible risks at the moment. The west are assisting people who they aren't really sure about against a common enemy. No one knows what they will be doing in 5,10 or even 20 years.
The Afghanistan example is a great example of this, great they are fighting the Russians, oh shit now they are fighting the US.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28880281]This is one of the possible risks at the moment. The west are assisting people who they aren't really sure about against a common enemy. No one knows what they will be doing in 5,10 or even 20 years.
The Afghanistan example is a great example of this, great they are fighting the Russians, oh shit now they are fighting the US.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Yes out of both of them Gaddafi is the 'baddie'. But if they get rid of him, it's not unlikely there will be a civil war for control, or something like that. So it's a giant risk giving the rebels anything.
Maybe I have been a bit behind on the news, but it seems the US Govt. has finally confirmed that A10's and AC130's are in use over Libya.
Gizmodo have a bit of an article about it.
[url]http://gizmodo.com/#!5786793/why-are-spectres-and-warthogs-attacking-gaddafis-forces-now[/url]
They raise some interesting points, mainly the fact that both of these planes are CAS planes. What happened to "not doing CAS for the rebels"?
I love the sense of camaraderie with this whole thing. With UN (mainly NATO) teaming up to gangfuck this sunuvabitch, I'd bet that he's torn from power within 2 months.
[QUOTE=Rage.;28879960]Just don't do what the British did in the 80s and give the Mujahideen training and weapons. Which many of them became part of the Al Qaeda, and using that against us.[/QUOTE]
The goal with such projects is to make them your ally. Yes, if they fail, you pay a price, but if you succeed, not only do you gain useful allies in the region, but you don't have to slaughter them all.
[editline]29th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jsm;28883948]Maybe I have been a bit behind on the news, but it seems the US Govt. has finally confirmed that A10's and AC130's are in use over Libya.
Gizmodo have a bit of an article about it.
[url]http://gizmodo.com/#!5786793/why-are-spectres-and-warthogs-attacking-gaddafis-forces-now[/url]
They raise some interesting points, mainly the fact that both of these planes are CAS planes. What happened to "not doing CAS for the rebels"?[/QUOTE]
It is probably being directed by special operations on the ground. Can't properly call down attacks in such a situation without having eyes on the ground telling you what is and what isn't a valid target. Generally speaking, rebels will be a poor choice for such things. I would imagine that someone is on the ground directing things who is from our military.
[url]http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/03/201132994454514581.html[/url]
Gaddafi forces pushed the rebels back out of Bin-Jawad. They seem to be using artillery and mortars, while they've pulled their heavy tanks out of Sirte. If the rebels get pass the artillery they'll have to deal with the remaining armor in Tripoli.
[editline]29th March 2011[/editline]
I wouldn't be surprised if the tanks end up being placed in residential or business districts as cover so that coalition forces won't be able to fire on them without risking killing civilians.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28885819]
It is probably being directed by special operations on the ground. Can't properly call down attacks in such a situation without having eyes on the ground telling you what is and what isn't a valid target. Generally speaking, rebels will be a poor choice for such things. I would imagine that someone is on the ground directing things who is from our military.[/QUOTE]
I guess SF people guiding in the various attacks could be a strong possibility (as the Gizmodo article alludes to). The accuracy of the bombs etc they have been dropping so far seems to be far too good without someone being there to help (either actually on the ground or through a drone). I also read somewhere that laser guided weapons have been used which would again suggest that they are being guided in from the ground.
Maybe its a coincidence, but in the lead up to the intervention (when it was simply in the very early planning stages, according to the various Governments) there were various news reports of special forces personnel coming slightly unstuck (The two that jump to mind are the SAS people who were captured by the rebels while they were allegedly protecting some low importance British diplomat on their way to meet the rebels and the dutch special forces who got captured by the Libyan government).
And on top of that the governments involved seem to have been very careful about what they said when they were ruling out ground troops (specifically not ruling out special forces).
Still, the fact they are using the A10 is an interesting development. I was thinking at the start of all this that surely it would be the ideal thing for them to use for what they are trying to do, I then thought that surely they wouldn't use it.
As for the AC-130, I don't think I have actually heard (official) confirmation of its use before. Although I guess thats because its designed to support special forces.
[editline]30th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=markfu;28886476]
I wouldn't be surprised if the tanks end up being placed in residential or business districts as cover so that coalition forces won't be able to fire on them without risking killing civilians.[/QUOTE]
I read somewhere that the US were using bombs which are effectively training weapons on targets close to civilians. From what I read they disable tanks etc purely by the kinetic energy they have from falling out of the sky onto the target.
I also assume there are some very accurate guided weapons they could use if they really needed to take out targets inside of cities etc.
The Rebels aren't going to make any good progress unless there is some sort of solid connection of comms between ground forces and the air. The Rebels do have total air superiority, but they can't notify the planes if they are in need of close air support.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28886809]The Rebels aren't going to make any good progress unless there is some sort of solid connection of comms between ground forces and the air. The Rebels do have total air superiority, but they can't notify the planes if they are in need of close air support.[/QUOTE]
The problem with doing this is that it would breech the UNSCR. I guess they could do it secretly.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28886826]The problem with doing this is that it would breech the UNSCR. I guess they could do it secretly.[/QUOTE]
Well, like any other governmental organization, they can get good by stretching their reasons to justify their actions.
'They were airdropped comms so that they may able to utilize the UN-sanctioned airforce more effectively in defending themselves and others from further harm by the regime.'
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28886868]Well, like any other governmental organization, they can get good by stretching their reasons to justify their actions.
'They were airdropped comms so that they may able to utilize the UN-sanctioned airforce more effectively in defending themselves and others from further harm by the regime.'[/QUOTE]
I wonder how many dudes in the rebel forces are trained in using NATO/US-standard communications equipment and radio protocol.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28886679]I read somewhere that the US were using bombs which are effectively training weapons on targets close to civilians. From what I read they disable tanks etc purely by the kinetic energy they have from falling out of the sky onto the target.[/quote]
Unless there's a USAF or DoD report (maybe BDA) that actually says that, then that's a pretty dubious clam.
[quote]I also assume there are some very accurate guided weapons they could use if they really needed to take out targets inside of cities etc.[/QUOTE]
Don't place too much faith on precision-guided weapons, or the hype that defense contractors use to sell their product.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28887029]I wonder how many dudes in the rebel forces are trained in using NATO/US-standard communications equipment and radio protocol.
[/QUOTE]
If Gaddafi's pre-civil war military is able to coordinate airstrikes, then I'm pretty sure that the number of troops that volunteered for the revolutionary army may be able to make use of similar comms delivered by NATO.
I love how all those totalitarian states try to pin things on other countries and tell obvious lies.
Gaddafi's even worse than North Korea at it!
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28887142]If Gaddafi's pre-civil war military is able to coordinate airstrikes, then I'm pretty sure that the number of troops that volunteered for the revolutionary army may be able to make use of similar comms delivered by NATO.[/QUOTE]
I dunno man. Procedures for air support can differ from nation to nation. A guy (maybe a FAC) trained in say Soviet/Russian air support procedures may not be able to "get into" a US-style system without significant retraining.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28887419]I dunno man. Procedures for air support can differ from nation to nation. A guy (maybe a FAC) trained in say Soviet/Russian air support procedures may not be able to "get into" a US-style system without significant retraining.[/QUOTE]
This strike is being coordinated by NATO, a conglomerate of EU and a few Mid-Eastern Nations, I'm pretty sure if you're having 6 jets from Qatar enforce the Libya No-Fly Zone, they better have similar communication methods with the NATO forces otherwise they'll end up having their asses blown out of the sky.
[editline]29th March 2011[/editline]
If a Multi-national task force consisting of multiple airforces from different nations, them I'm pretty sure they can have the Libyan Rebel Regulars at least notify airplanes of their activities.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;28887461]This strike is being coordinated by NATO, a conglomerate of EU and a few Mid-Eastern Nations, I'm pretty sure if you're having 6 jets from Qatar enforce the Libya No-Fly Zone, they better have similar communication methods with the NATO forces otherwise they'll end up having their asses blown out of the sky.[/QUOTE]
Well, the Qatar military [i]is[/i] equipped and trained as a Western-style force due to its relation with the US, UK and France.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28880042]Pretty sure the American's did that.
If the Americans are going to give weapons to them, perhaps they should NOT give them stingers. Every time they have done that in the past its come back to bite them in the ass.[/QUOTE]All they really need is anti-tank weapons and ammunition for their small (and not-so-small) arms. I'd wager RPG-7s with tandem-HEAT warheads would be enough to penetrate the armour on any of Gaddafi's tanks. The coalition has the no-fly zone covered, anyway, so Stingers aren't needed.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;28873807]There's no proof that their access to Libya's oil will remain stable even after the current Libyan crisis. It's obvious that if they had no investments in oil in Libya/Libya had no oil, they would be reluctant to take action in Libya like they did in Rwanda and Darfur etc.[/QUOTE]No country seems to give a damn about sub-Saharan Africa in general e.g. Nigeria in the 60's-late 90's
EDIT: Except for perhaps Somalia, which saw UN and US intervention despite having bugger all oil.
[img]http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/7830/800xsp.jpg[/img]
A bullet crown?
Who is taylor kitsch dating, [url=http://dating-services-for-married-man-in-atlanta.vvsspeed.com/]dating services for married man in atlanta[/url]. Transgender dating free.
Mastery with women and dating. Dating teachers, [url=http://dating-sunset-hills.vvsspeed.com/]dating sunset hills[/url].
Black dating italian man woman, [url=http://dating-mackville.vvsspeed.com/]dating mackville[/url]. Dating wellman.
Dating ex-spouses friend. Dating site us, [url=http://dating-stringer.vvsspeed.com/]dating stringer[/url].
Hot free fuck dating, [url=http://chat-directsex-live-video.vvsspeed.com/]chat directsex live video[/url]. Sex dating in washington virginia.
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spambot" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.