UN Security Council passes no-fly zone resolution, air strikes expected 'within hours' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=booster;28654898]Well with The US's $668 billion Defense budget, they'll probably destroy them all in the first minutes.[/QUOTE] just like they did with those dern iraqis right???

[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28656717]I hate timezones, we need some universal shit.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time[/url] Its going to happen at @958 [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;28656759]I'm quite excited, me.[/QUOTE] It's always pretty amazing to know you are sitting possibly watching history being made.

[QUOTE=Big Blue;28656762]just like they did with those dern iraqis right???[/QUOTE] The war in Iraq was over with relatively quickly. The difference here is that we don't need to occupy Libya- this is a civil war, not an occupation.

Just so everyone knows, it's @914 and it happens at @958.

SCUD launches against Italy and France? Do they have the range?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;28656816]SCUD launches against Italy and France? Do they have the range?[/QUOTE] My main concern is nuclear or chemical terrorism. They supposedly shut down their nuclear program long ago, but given what's happened in, say, Nigeria, and the ease of access over the black market, I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two warheads tucked away for a rainy day. But this is taking it a bit far.

Reagan tried this in 1986, and while it nearly crippled Gaddafi's regime, they managed to survive. If the airstrikes don't work this time, something else must be done, even if it's an invasion, to take that cocksucker out of power.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;28656816]SCUD launches against Italy and France? Do they have the range?[/QUOTE] Nah [quote=Wikipedia]Strict United Nations sanctions from 1992 to 1999 rendered Rabta inactive. Libya's chemical program was completely abandoned on December 19, 2003 along with their other weapons of mass destruction programs as part of a program to get sanctions lifted and normalize relations with foreign governments. In 2004, between 27 February and 3 March, Libya destroyed 3,200 chemical weapon artillery shells under supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). On March 5, 2004, Libya declared a stockpile of 23 tons of mustard gas as well as precursors for sarin and other chemicals. Libya officially acceeded to the Chemical Weapons Convention in June 2004.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Big Blue;28656762]just like they did with those dern iraqis right???[/QUOTE] The Iraqi army was defeated within weeks, largely thanks to vastly superior equipment and tactics. Conventional warfare is what the US excels at, their whole military is designed for it. It's the insurgencies they're rather shit at.

[quote] 10:51pm The head of the Benghazi-based Libyan National Council says that the opposition's fighters will "stand firm" and not be deterred by Gaddafi's threats, Reuters reports. [/quote] [url]http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-17[/url]

Hopefully the Loyalists will down some the imperialist aircraft!

Any live stream?

I wonder what the quickest way to find out the result is? I assume there is no stream of UNSC meetings like there is with various parliaments etc across the world.

[quote=UN Security Council chairman]If you're interested, just step into the portal and I will take that as a yes. Otherwise ...well... I can offer the rebels a battle they have no chance of winning. Rather an anticlimax after what they've just survived.[/quote]

[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28656945]Hopefully the Loyalists will down some the imperialist aircraft![/QUOTE] My god you have become a terrible poster.

[QUOTE=Jsm;28656959]I wonder what the quickest way to find out the result is? I assume there is no stream of UNSC meetings like there is with various parliaments etc across the world.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/[/url] Channel 3

[QUOTE=smurfy;28656975][url]http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/[/url] Channel 3[/QUOTE] Ah that was just an advert when I viewed it a few mins ago. Ill keep that open somewhere (already have ALE and BBC news open)

If the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda, than America siding with them?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;28656970]My god you have become a terrible poster.[/QUOTE] Sorry,But I support Gaddafi.

[QUOTE=The mouse;28657030]If the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda, than America siding with them?[/QUOTE] They aren't. That appears to be 90% bullshit coming out of the Libyan government. I have heard that Al Qaeda said they "approved" of the uprising against Gaddafi, but they are not "supporting" them as such it seems. You know you are fucked when you are an "enemy of the west" and the worlds most hated terrorist group suggests you should get out.

[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28656945]Hopefully the Loyalists will down some the imperialist aircraft![/QUOTE]Seems you haven't learned from the previous bans.

[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28657065]Sorry,But I support Gaddafi.[/QUOTE] I support you being permabanned.

BBC seem to be reporting that at least 4 Arab countries would assist enforce the NFZ.

[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;28657065]Sorry,But I support Gaddafi.[/QUOTE] makes sense

They are also discussing the legality, apparently the British government think that it could be legal without a UN resolution if a humanitarian crisis developed (IE they started to slaughter civilians), but they would not be able to prevent an attack on Benghazi. (Iraq war deja vu?? "We need a UN resolution BUT IT MIGHT BE OK WITHOUT!!")

Gaddafey have no friends :saddowns:

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28656896]The Iraqi army was defeated within weeks, largely thanks to vastly superior equipment and tactics. Conventional warfare is what the US excels at, their whole military is designed for it. It's the insurgencies they're rather shit at.[/QUOTE] That was back in 2003. Now American forces have been focused largely on low-intensity conflict/COIN for nearly a decade now. Hell, the famous National Training Center at Fort Irwin no longer trains rotating units in high-intensity conventional conflicts with their Soviet motor rifle regiment force. To take an example, conventional warfare was once what the IDF excelled at back in the 1960s-1980s, but over a decade of fighting Palestinians diminished its conventional capabilities and when they decided to go fight Hezbollah in 2006, they had a surprise waiting for them. [url=http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcarl.army.mil%2Fdownload%2Fcsipubs%2FmatthewsOP26.pdf&ei=KHmCTcHCDofksQO43YHmAQ&usg=AFQjCNHBoDvumkO50mu1UvWbQG9smww-yw&sig2=eTbZSrUQmkZRdhuWRjZhkA]Source[/url] [quote]Another crucial factor in the IDF’s reverses in southern Lebanon was the dismal performance of its ground forces. [b]Years of counterinsurgency (COIN) operations had seriously diminished its conventional warfighting capabilities.[/b] The IDF was completely dismayed to find that its land forces could not conduct a successful ground campaign in southern Lebanon. Although Naveh was heavily criticized, his observations are astute and timely. [b]“The point is, the IDF fell in love with what it was doing with the Palestinians,” he stated. “In fact it became addictive. You know when you fight a war against a rival who’s by all means inferior to you, you may lose a guy here or there, but you’re in total control. It’s nice, you can pretend that you fight the war and yet it’s not really a dangerous war. . . . [/b]I remember talking to five brigade commanders. . . . I asked them if they had an idea . . . what it meant to go into battle against a Syrian division? Did they have in mind what a barrage of 10 Syrian artillery battalions looked like?”[/quote] The swiftness of Iraqi military defeat was more due to the fact that they were really [i]incompetent[/i] than any superiority of the US military.

[QUOTE=Jsm;28657109]BBC seem to be reporting that at least 4 Arab countries would assist enforce the NFZ.[/QUOTE]That's good; the more that neighbours pitch in to overthrow Gaddafi, the less Western intervention needed, and thus less opportunity for Gaddafi to paint the revolution as a Western colonisation attempt.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;28657166] The swiftness of Iraqi military defeat was more due to the fact that they were really [i]incompetent[/i] over any superiority of the US military.[/QUOTE] And add to that the fact they gave up pretty quickly. They were not dedicated to the cause it seems, unlike in Libya where it looks like Gaddafis army really support him (Although I wonder they would feel like that if they had jets flying overhead) [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28657176]That's good; the more that neighbours pitch in to overthrow Gaddafi, the less Western intervention needed, and thus less opportunity for Gaddafi to paint the revolution as a Western colonisation attempt.[/QUOTE] This is what they were saying. It seems they really want Arab support so it at least looks like they want him out not just the west.

[QUOTE=Jsm;28657207]And add to that the fact they gave up pretty quickly. They were not dedicated to the cause it seems, unlike in Libya where it looks like Gaddafis army really support him (Although I wonder they would feel like that if they had jets flying overhead)[/QUOTE] Iraqi's Regular Army conscripts largely melted away AFIAK. The Republican Guard units that US forces engaged really did fight to the death.