Libya

[cHodAX]

It has been widely reported that explosions were heard in Tripoli last night, hundreds of miles away from rebel forces. The west has said they were attacking anti-air postitions, those postitions just happened to be in military bases in a city where the rebellion was put down weeks ago. The U.N. resolution was passed to protect civilians from state forces, primarily in Benghazi which the rebels are using as thier stronghold, that city is a far far out of the range of the AA positions in Tripoli, AA cannot be used to attack civilians. So, please explain how those positions are valid targets.

 

[Deebs]

BANG and thankyou.

The UN resolution states that only forces actively engaged against civilian targets can be attacked. You resolution arguement falls to peices right there, bases far away from the conflict are not legitmate targets unless they go hostile and they have not.

Actually you are wrong, I suggest you read UN resolution 1973/2011 for the full details.

The resolution tasks the member states with enforcing a NO-FLY zone across the entire Libyan airspace. This in itself means that ALL anti-aircraft/radar systems across the entire country become targets.

The other thing is that the resolution also asks that an arms embargo be carried out, this gives permission for a NO-FLY zone and a naval blockade.

For your reference I shall link the resolution and I suggest you read it in full. Remember, this resolution has the support of the Arab League, something which rarely ever happens. I am not going to get into the rights or wrongs of this resolution with you, just merely pointing out that your interpretation of the resolution is way off the mark.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

 

[Chosen]

It has been widely reported that explosions were heard in Tripoli last night, hundreds of miles away from rebel forces. The west has said they were attacking anti-air postitions, those postitions just happened to be in military bases in a city where the rebellion was put down weeks ago. The U.N. resolution was passed to protect civilians from state forces, primarily in Benghazi which the rebels are using as thier stronghold, that city is a far far out of the range of the AA positions in Tripoli, AA cannot be used to attack civilians. So, please explain how those positions are valid targets.

Because those AA positions can and will be used to shoot down our planes, which we use to controll the airspace?

 

[Deebs]

It has been widely reported that explosions were heard in Tripoli last night, hundreds of miles away from rebel forces. The west has said they were attacking anti-air postitions, those postitions just happened to be in military bases in a city where the rebellion was put down weeks ago. The U.N. resolution was passed to protect civilians from state forces, primarily in Benghazi which the rebels are using as thier stronghold, that city is a far far out of the range of the AA positions in Tripoli, AA cannot be used to attack civilians. So, please explain how those positions are valid targets.

They are valid targets as they can be used against Coalition forces who are tasked with implementing a country wide NO-FLY zone.

 

[Embattle]

The standard counter argument from stupid people was always going to be that it is all about oil, it would be just as silly to say it doesn't play a part at all but it is a minor part either way.

This is one of those debates that will rage on for some time with the so called anti's interpretations always being totally different from the pro's, in reality if you actually read the resiltion it is very loose in what it states can and can't be done.

In reality Gaddafi is just another scumbag who hasn't changed one bit, instead he has just fallen even further out of favour with the west and other countries. It is the price the west and other countries will pay for keep trying to paper over the cracks when it comes to dealing with non democratic countries lead by such people.

 

[cHodAX]

Actually you are wrong, I suggest you read UN resolution 1973/2011 for the full details.

The resolution tasks the member states with enforcing a NO-FLY zone across the entire Libyan airspace. This in itself means that ALL anti-aircraft/radar systems across the entire country become targets.

The other thing is that the resolution also asks that an arms embargo be carried out, this gives permission for a NO-FLY zone and a naval blockade.

For your reference I shall link the resolution and I suggest you read it in full. Remember, this resolution has the support of the Arab League, something which rarely ever happens. I am not going to get into the rights or wrongs of this resolution with you, just merely pointing out that your interpretation of the resolution is way off the mark.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

AA units can't fly. If they become legitimate targets then what happens to the men and equipment around them, they are legitimate targets too even if they are attacking no one nor anywhere close to a combat zone? Even the Russians are now regretting the resolution, the world has been conned into signing off on what will effectively become regeime change under the guise of 'protecting civilians'.

Russia regrets military actions against Libya

It is a big con job mate and no one will sell me on it being otherwise.

 

[Chosen]

AA units can't fly. If they become legitimate targets then what happens to the men and equipment around them, they are legitimate targets too even if they are attacking no one nor anywhere close to a combat zone? Even the Russians are now regretting the resolution, the world has been conned into signing off on what will effectively become regeime change under the guise of 'protecting civilians'.

Russians and China did not use their veto. All they are donig now is called political play(to stay neutral, but at the same time not go against either side).

They are beeing passive, thats it. If russia really regreted it, all they could do was use their veto. And nothing wouldve been done.

And to withhold a controll of the airzone, the allies need to have planes in the air at all time. Which is not possible when there is lots of AA stationed all around the country.

Thats why these need to be taken out first.

If they Gaddafi had promised to withold the resolution from FN, then this wouldnt have been needed. But since he dont, and still plays aggressively, what makes you think he wont use all tools to shoot down our planes?

 

[cHodAX]

Russians and China did not use their veto. All they are donig now is called political play(to stay neutral, but at the same time not go against either side).

They are beeing passive, thats it.

And to withhold a controll of the airzone, the allies need to have planes in the air at all time. Which is not possible when there is lots of AA stationed all around the country.

Thats why these need to be taken out first.

If they Gaddafi had promised to withold the resolution from FN, then this wouldnt have been needed. But since he dont, and still plays aggressively, what makes you think he wont use all tools to shoot down our planes?

I am well aware they didn't use their veto and they didn't because the resolution is deliberately vague just like the one used against Iraq. Sadly the UNSC has been conned yet again.

Libya: Options For India And Russia – Analysis « Eurasia Review

Do you think if the vote was up again to be re-voted on that Russia would abstain again now that we know the scope of how far our forces are being allowed to attack? I think not, this is far more than a non-fly zone.

 

[Chosen]

I am well aware they didn't use their veto and they didn't because the resolution is deliberately vague just like the one used against Iraq. Sadly the UNSC has been conned yet again.

Libya: Options For India And Russia – Analysis « Eurasia Review

Do you think if the vote was up again to be re-voted on that Russia would abstain again now that we know the scope of how far our forces are being allowed to attack? I think not, this is far more than a non-fly zone.

Did you even read your own link?

"While India and China refrained from spelling out in detail their concerns and reservations about the way the resolution was drafted, Russia did. It made it clear during its interventions in the UNSC debate that while it had no objection in principle to a No Fly Zone, it cannot support it unless the command and control was decided beforehand."

Says nothing about them beeing totally against the resolution, but they wanted the command and control to be decided beforehand. I doubt they would use their veto even if it was taken up again.

 

[Embattle]

I am well aware they didn't use their veto and they didn't because the resolution is deliberately vague just like the one used against Iraq. Sadly the UNSC has been conned yet again.

Libya: Options For India And Russia – Analysis « Eurasia Review

Do you think if the vote was up again to be re-voted on that Russia would abstain again now that we know the scope of how far our forces are being allowed to attack? I think not, this is far more than a non-fly zone.

Keep going with your interpretations and links, they won't convince any one differently about it and in fact they seem to weaken your position more than reinforce it.

The actual actions of these countries speak some what differently to what you seem to think, they didn't support it but you seem to think they didn't realise the range and scope of the resolution and have some how be duped into not vetoing it.

PS I see little point in posting more in this subject, I doubt it'll change in any meanful way with litte more than links and no brain ideas being posted.

 

[cHodAX]

Did you even read your own link?

"While India and China refrained from spelling out in detail their concerns and reservations about the way the resolution was drafted, Russia did. It made it clear during its interventions in the UNSC debate that while it had no objection in principle to a No Fly Zone, it cannot support it unless the command and control was decided beforehand."

Says nothing about them beeing totally against the resolution, but they wanted the command and control to be decided beforehand. I doubt they would use their veto even if it was taken up again.

Obviously, a no-fly zone over the eastern part of the country was actually a good idea as that is where the rebels are hiding amongst civilians. By allowing a no-fly zone over the entire country we have given western forces carte blanche to attack any Libyan military unit on the ground (by saying it was AA) even though those units are hundreds of miles from any area of conflict. Again, why are AA units in Tripoli a threat when there are no rebel forces there? We don't need to control the skies over Tripoli unless we intend to help oust the regeime. We can easily put rotating mixed wings of air to air and air to ground planes over the skies of Benghazi and stop attacks against those strongholds. Why do we need to attack Tripoli itself when it is a long long way from those rebels?

 

[cHodAX]

Keep going with your interpretations and links, they won't convince any one differently about it and in fact they seem to weaken your position more than reinforce it.

The actual actions of these countries speak some what differently to what you seem to think, they didn't support it but you seem to think they didn't realise the range and scope of the resolution and have some how be duped into not vetoing it.

PS I see little point in posting more in this subject, I doubt it'll change in any meanful way with litte more than links and no brain ideas being posted.

Actually I haven't read anything from you that would sway the arguement either, you are just churing up stuff others have already said. But please feel free to keep throwing insults, you lose your arguement there and then when you resort to that level.

 

[cHodAX]

Did you even read your own link?

"While India and China refrained from spelling out in detail their concerns and reservations about the way the resolution was drafted, Russia did. It made it clear during its interventions in the UNSC debate that while it had no objection in principle to a No Fly Zone, it cannot support it unless the command and control was decided beforehand."

Says nothing about them beeing totally against the resolution, but they wanted the command and control to be decided beforehand. I doubt they would use their veto even if it was taken up again.

AGI News On - RUSSIA EXPRESSES REGRET AT 'RUSHED' ATTACKS ON LIBYA

AFP: China regrets multinational air strikes in Libya

Both Russia and China pitch in.

 

[Chosen]

AGI News On - RUSSIA EXPRESSES REGRET AT 'RUSHED' ATTACKS ON LIBYA

AFP: China regrets multinational air strikes in Libya

Both Russia and China pitch in.

Again, all political play. Not like they understod what would happen with such a resolution.

Obviously, a no-fly zone over the eastern part of the country was actually a good idea as that is where the rebels are hiding amongst civilians. By allowing a no-fly zone over the entire country we have given western forces carte blanche to attack any Libyan military unit on the ground (by saying it was AA) even though those units are hundreds of miles from any area of conflict. Again, why are AA units in Tripoli a threat when there are no rebel forces there? We don't need to control the skies over Tripoli unless we intend to help oust the regeime. We can easily put rotating mixed wings of air to air and air to ground planes over the skies of Benghazi and stop attacks against those strongholds. Why do we need to attack Tripoli itself when it is a long long way from those rebels?

Because when you are going to controll a airspace over the country, its the entire country, not just one city. The best is to intervene with the enemy fighters even before they take off to launch at the civilians.

 

[tierk]

40 odd years in charge seems to be about enough in my book. Yes it would probably be completely different if it was a country without a natural resource like oil or of strategic importance for some countries, however, it is the price you pay it seems if you are sitting on some of the worlds cleanest oil fields.

As for being conned into bombing the crap out of them, i am afraid that is the way it is done every time anyway as most people dont give a shit or are not interested what is happening in their own little village let alone somewhere far far away.

 

[cHodAX]

Again, all political play. Not like they understod what would happen with such a resolution.




Because when you are going to controll a airspace over the country, its the entire country, not just one city. The best is to intervene with the enemy fighters even before they take off to launch at the civilians.

Really? So we have never had no-fly zones drawn up over lines of longitude and latitude before? Hmm, there was me thinking that was historically the norm.

 

[Chosen]

Really? So we have never had no-fly zones drawn up over lines of longitude and latitude before? Hmm, there was me thinking that was historically the norm.

Again, the best way to uphold a no fly zone, is to make sure they dont take off at all. And to do that you have to controll that the airstrips are not going to be used. And to do that, we have to make sure that the AAs are down.

The no fly zone resolution, involves the whole country, not just that one city.

 

[cHodAX]

40 odd years in charge seems to be about enough in my book. Yes it would probably be completely different if it was a country without a natural resource like oil or of strategic importance for some countries, however, it is the price you pay it seems if you are sitting on some of the worlds cleanest oil fields.

As for being conned into bombing the crap out of them, i am afraid that is the way it is done every time anyway as most people dont give a shit or are not interested what is happening in their own little village let alone somewhere far far away.

Yep, bang on Tierk. It keeps on happening because people close thier eyes or deny it is happening and believe the crap mainstream media spout at times like this. As long as the oil keeps flowing the people of the west don't give a shite, 90% of them just see it as 'a few more dead ragheads'. Fucking tragic, the Libyans are lovely people and Ghaddafi might be a **** but that country has been stable for 40 years whilst the people have remained fed and healthy.

Want to overthrow somewhere? Sudan is a good place to start but no oil so it won't pay.

 

[tierk]

Because when you are going to controll a airspace over the country, its the entire country, not just one city. The best is to intervene with the enemy fighters even before they take off to launch at the civilians.

o

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Iraq had seen different no fly zones implemented over the years. Kurdish North had one. The south had a fixed wing no fly zone at one point, then a full no fly zone.

You dont need it across the whole country and there is precedents for specific areas being closed etc.

 

[Chosen]

o

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Iraq had seen different no fly zones implemented over the years. Kurdish North had one. The south had a fixed wing no fly zone at one point, then a full no fly zone.

You dont need it across the whole country and there is precedents for specific areas being closed etc.

Yes, I know. And thats not what I even said. Iraq is iraq. Libya is libya. This time there is a no fly zone over the entire country.

 

[cHodAX]

Again, the best way to uphold a no fly zone, is to make sure they dont take off at all. And to do that you have to controll that the airstrips are not going to be used. And to do that, we have to make sure that the AAs are down.

The no fly zone resolution, involves the whole country, not just that one city.

Rubbish, they are flying 70's era soviet equipment, they have poor sigint, no AWACS and their ground based radars are piss poor. Italy alone could drop the Libyan airforce on a good clear afternoon, we can track them taking off and intercept them with afterburners long before they can hit the rebels and flee. It is just a litany of excuses to bring those oil/gas fields into our sphere of influence.

 

[cHodAX]

o

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Iraq had seen different no fly zones implemented over the years. Kurdish North had one. The south had a fixed wing no fly zone at one point, then a full no fly zone.

You dont need it across the whole country and there is precedents for specific areas being closed etc.

Again, thank fuck someone isn't walking around with thier eyes and ears closed, shouting in the dark and trying to justify western aggression.

 

[Embattle]

Actually I haven't read anything from you that would sway the arguement either, you are just churing up stuff others have already said. But please feel free to keep throwing insults, you lose your arguement there and then when you resort to that level.

I can't really say I've tried to sway it one way or the other, I'm sure I could use my knowledge and opinion on the subject as well as posting loads of links like you. Then again seeing that you've carried on living up to the opinion I have of you I see it as a rather large waste of time.

Want to overthrow somewhere? Sudan is a good place to start but no oil so it won't pay.

Actually it does have oil but like the media you try and bash I suspect you are using the term rather loosely. It should also be pointed out that Sudan is a totally different kettle of fish but oh well.

Again, thank fuck someone isn't walking around with thier eyes and ears closed, shouting in the dark and trying to justify western aggression.

More like thank fuck I've found another who agrees with me.

PS Sorry I couldn't stick to my promise not to comment.

 

[Chosen]

Rubbish, they are flying 70's era soviet equipment, they have poor sigint, no AWACS and their ground based radars are piss poor. Italy alone could drop the Libyan airforce on a good clear afternoon, we can track them taking off and intercept them with afterburners long before they can hit the rebels and flee. It is just a litany of excuses to bring those oil/gas fields into our sphere of influence.

Those airplanes still got enough firepower to kill civilians. And taking a risk that they might pass by the planes we got in the air and kill the civilians before our planes engages, is not something we should do.

Your arguements are starting to get poor, and the oil/gass thing is just way to overly used now. With nothing to back it up with. Almost as if you know how everyone involved in this conflict thinks.
Atleast I base my facts on personal knowledge of what I myself have been working with, instead of the media and theories taken out by the thin air.

 

[Deebs]

AA units can't fly. If they become legitimate targets then what happens to the men and equipment around them, they are legitimate targets too even if they are attacking no one nor anywhere close to a combat zone? Even the Russians are now regretting the resolution, the world has been conned into signing off on what will effectively become regeime change under the guise of 'protecting civilians'.

Russia regrets military actions against Libya

It is a big con job mate and no one will sell me on it being otherwise.

As I said to you earlier, I am not going to argue the merits of such a resolution.

I am merely interpreting the resolution so that you may understand what the resolution sets out. Gaddafi will have a copy of the resolution and therefore will know that all AA/radar/control bunkers are now legitimate targets. With this in mind he can move his military personnel out of harms way if he wanted to.

Regardless, they are classified as threats and will be neutralized. This happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, The Falklands and numerous other places over the years. It is a defacto move when attempting to establish air superiority. It will never change.

 

[cHodAX]

As I said to you earlier, I am not going to argue the merits of such a resolution.

I am merely interpreting the resolution so that you may understand what the resolution sets out. Gaddafi will have a copy of the resolution and therefore will know that all AA/radar/control bunkers are now legitimate targets. With this in mind he can move his military personnel out of harms way if he wanted to.

Regardless, they are classified as threats and will be neutralized. This happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, The Falklands and numerous other places over the years. It is a defacto move when attempting to establish air superiority. It will never change.

I understand and appreciate that bud, surely him moving them out harms way is complying with U.N demands though right? He can't attack the rebels with them from Tripoli, that in itself is a defacto ceasefire.

 

[rynnor]

When the UN ruled for the no fly zone the bombings became inevitable because you cant leave their anti air radar emplacements if you want air superiority.

The bombings are primarily for operational reasons.

I am also suprised to see people dont think its a popular uprising - until the military were used to put it down it looked set to sweep the entire country.

 

[Deebs]

o

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Iraq had seen different no fly zones implemented over the years. Kurdish North had one. The south had a fixed wing no fly zone at one point, then a full no fly zone.

You dont need it across the whole country and there is precedents for specific areas being closed etc.

Sigh, have any of you read the resolution? 1973/2011 CALLS FOR A FULL NO-FLY ZONE OVER THE ENTIRE LIBYAN AIRSPACE.

Christ, is it so fucking difficult?

 

[cHodAX]

Sigh, have any of you read the resolution? 1973/2011 CALLS FOR A FULL NO-FLY ZONE OVER THE ENTIRE LIBYAN AIRSPACE.

Christ, is it so fucking difficult?

You misunderstand him Deebs, he is pointing out that the no-fly zone did not need to be country wide and it is infact not the norm.

 

[Deebs]

I understand and appreciate that bud, surely him moving them out harms way is complying with U.N demands though right? He can't attack the rebels with them from Tripoli, that in itself is a defacto ceasefire.

Chodax,

What I think will happen is that when/if he moves his ground forces away from Civilian areas then they will not come under direct attack.

His AA/Radar/Control bunkers will always be targeted for as long as they pose a threat, ie. they can potentially hit a coalition plane.