USS Enterprise on its way to Libya as America and Britain ramp up threats to enforce no-fly zone abo, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 49 times


reply posted on 2-3-2011 @ 11:24 AM by jackflap
Gaddafi forces battle for rebel areas


In a speech carried on state TV in Libya, Gaddafi repeated his determination to "fight to the last man and last woman", again claiming popular support for his regime as forces loyal to him fought to wrest cities from control of his opponents. Gaddafi blamed al-Qaida for the 15 days of unrest, and warned thousands of people would die if the US and Nato invaded. "I carried out a revolution in the 70s, handed over power to the people and then rested," he told a loyal audience in Tripoli. Gaddafi said the UN could send fact-finding committees to prove his forces had not fired on peaceful civilians, and said there had been "no protests at all in the east". He said reports of deaths were exaggerated, putting the toll at 150. Other estimates say up to 2,000 have died.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Gadhafi to Obama: Thousands will die in Libya if US intervenes


"Thousands of Libyans" will die if the United States or NATO intervenes, Gadhafi said in a speech this morning. The United States moved warships near Libya. U.S. officials have repeatedly said all options are on the table with regard to Libya but have been careful to avoid saber-rattling. "We are, the United States, preparing for contingencies by moving some assets into the region, primarily focused on the potential humanitarian contingencies that are out there," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "But as I have said and others have said, our U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, we obviously aren't taking any options off the table." Referring to Libya's colonizer in the first half of the 20th century, Gadhafi said, "We will not accept an intervention like that of the Italians that lasted decades." "We will not accept a similar American intervention," Gadhafi said. "This will lead to a bloody war, and thousands of Libyans will die if America and NATO enter Libya." The United States is working with NATO to seek an international response to the violence in Libya.


content.usatoday.com...

Well that just about says it all. You know what I am finding funny? How all of these world leaders are telling Gaddafi to leave. Their message to him is just leave.

Where in the world is he supposed to go? It's not like he can file the paperwork and retire from being a dictator and spend the rest of his days on the beach. Not only him but the likes of Kim Jong from North Korea and similar types.

There is nowhere for these people to go and hide anymore. They are supposed to end up in prison or die or both. Just like Saddam. I wonder if they were told all this before they took the job?
edit on 2-3-2011 by jackflap because: Grammar




reply posted on 2-3-2011 @ 12:33 PM by BRITWARRIOR
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


OR

It could just be the fact Gaddafi is killing his own people & hiring mercenaries to kill his own people? if your going to promote democracy & freedom you also need to support it, ben ali & mubarack did not do that should we have stepped in there?


No shortage of other countries and rogue dictators that have and are doing far worse than Gaddafi..
But the US hasn't stepped in...
Don't get me wrong, I hope the US helps those poor people..
I just question their motives given the atrocities they have and do ignore...



I completely disagree

And who would that be exactly ?

This is very very different to all other uprisings in the region surely everybody can see this no?

I think alot of people in this thread don't even know how this Libya crisis has unfolded/played out so far and have only just turn on there news channel to see the USS Enterprise nears Libya, i can see how easy it is to make that connection after the tits up how not to remove a dictator Iraq model,

Have people completely forgetting about Tunisia & Egypt ?

In Egypt & Tunisia Mubarack & Ben Ali both never resulted in violence to "stay" in power and neither did they hire foreign mercenaries to come over and carry out the shootings of its own people, the people want democracy sorry but that is not it!, every day on the news hundreds died from this ordered massacring of the peaceful protester wanting freedom & democracy LOL but yeah its the oil, maybe it was the oil that turned the Libyan leader into Hitler and commit genocide?

He could have killed 90% of his people and the west intervened would have got blamed for wanting the oil no matter what happens the west will get acuesed of wanting the oil

Let just throw another scenario in the works which i don't think most of you have really thought through because you're only thinking with your Iraq model caps on....

Now should the SHTF in Saudi Arabia....

What do you think is going to happen to the "Entire World" if civil war is still going on in Libya ?

Not forgetting the world is not out of recession ?

Say what you will but this is of great concern to all and how this all play out in that region of the world it could well decide the future of the world

you can laugh or say what you like but if Saudi goes the same way as Libya you're all in the ****

What we are seeing now is exactly what i said in my last post that would happen, should the west seek to intervene with military assets it will only go in the favour of other regional dictators already splurting this entire uprising is a western conspiracy, and hey presto Gaddafi just addressed the nation to unite against a foreign invasion LOL makes you laugh how these dictators work, it will just confuse the people in uprising who do they listen to? the dictator on his last legs (but still a Libyan) or foreign governments threatening to use military action against Gaddafi to help the people ?

Yeah i think its obvious we need to stay the hell out of this entire thing in any region and let them sort out there own business for once, but i will keep drilling it into your heads its not the oil nore the oil rich countrys the west/us wants to own and control but much rather to ensure its security
(i'm talking about Libya here not! Iraq),
Now still the security of another country is not our right or business either i get that, but the worlds economy is driven by this stuff as i said a Libya scenario in Saudi Arabia would put the world on its knees in fact the world is already on its knees it would put it flat out on its arse KO'ed


Now is the time for the middle east to take its freedom and have a "real democracy" to get rid of all its dictators, i think they deserve it and i hope they get it, the world would be a better/safer place and maybe just maybe we could all start reading from the same page for once


reply posted on 2-3-2011 @ 06:15 PM by BRITWARRIOR
reply to post by schuyler



It can still operate from there should the no fly zone be enforced on Libya, i don't think Aircraft Carriers need to be anchored of shore of Libya to strike it, so in essence is in range

The only problem would be if Egypt would not grant it permission to fly over its air space i can't see that happening, in which case it would need to get out into the med


reply posted on 2-3-2011 @ 06:45 PM by schuyler
Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
reply to post by schuyler


It can still operate from there should the no fly zone be enforced on Libya, i don't think Aircraft Carriers need to be anchored of shore of Libya to strike it, so in essence is in range


I just got out an atlas and measured the distance from the Red Sea to Triploi. I don't know if any country claims ownership here. Let's just assume not for the sake of argument. If you position the Enteprise in the middle of the Red Sea off the coast of Luxor, the distance to Triploi, at least (as the crow flies over Egyptian territory) is between 1250-1500 miles.

The range of an F/A-18 Super Hornet is 1275 miles. the so-called "combat radius" is about 400 miles. So IF you were to commence combat operations over Libya, i.e.: Over Tripoli, you have one huge problem in refueling your fighters. In order to do an effective job of staying over the target area for any length of time at all, you would have to have a series of tankers positioned enroute for the fighters to do in-flight refueling, probably several times in the course of a mission. You might be able to get to the eastern oil fields a little easier.

So I would say calling the Enterprise within range is kind of pushing the envelope here. They need another carrier in there a whole lot closer. The GHW Bush is ready to deploy, but will take severl days to get there even if they start immediately.


reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 06:40 AM by woogleuk
reply to post by schuyler


There is talk of using the RAF for refuelling mid mission, if they ever decided it was a mission.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 19 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags
President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags
Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags
US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags