US WAR SHIPS HEADED TO LYBIA AFTER ARAB LEAGUE approves of imposing a no-fly zone

This is really turning into a world war III scenario. Although some Arab Nations support a no-fly zone over Libya am sure not ALL Arab Nations would agree and that could signal the beginning to some serious tensions between other dictators across the middle east. Once the American and NATO bombs start falling over Libya Eliminating it's air defense am sure other countries will have a problem with it and would call for massive fighting around the region.

www.ledger-enquirer.com...

usually we post a link...the www thing

you didn't post a link to source.

But this is what I find hypocritical of the whole mess.
The Arab League will impose a no-fly zone over Libya
yet they will shoot protesters on site in their own
countries. Can we at least keep the same standard
here folks ??? So are we to impose a no-fly zone
over Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as well ???
There is a double standard here bigger than the moon.

We need to stay out of other countries. We don't want others telling us how to take care of the business of rebellion, so leave them alone, let them fight it out, then buy oil from the victors.

reply to post by heineken


Can't find a link yet but it will hit the media soon and I would put some links up. Got the information from a very dependable source.

If the Arab League wants to impose a No-Fly Zone, I would defer to their jurisdiction as opposed to NATO or the US getting invoved.

Now THEY need to enforce it. Let Saudi, Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian pilots man the skies over Libya. I say we've got our fingers in too many pies as it is. No matter what we do, if Western pilots start dropping bombs or shooting down aircraft, we WILL make enemies; even if the intention is to save innocent life. I think we have enough of those already.

The Arabs should take the lead on this.

Originally posted by Warhacks
Can't find a link yet but it will hit the media soon and I would put some links up. Got the information from a very dependable source.

www.cnn.com...

The Arab League voted Saturday to back a no-fly zone in Libya and is asking that the U.N. Security Council impose the measure, officials of the regional body told reporters.

"It has one goal: To protect the civilian population," Amre Moussa, the body's secretary-general said.

"We will inform the U.N. Security Council of our request to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya," Moussa said. "The U.N. Security Council should decide how it will be enforced."

but there is nothing in that page that says US War Ships
are gonna enforce this no-fly zone.

another couple civil wars come to mind when thinking about
US intervention in the skies.

Serbia and Bosnia

and that didn't work out so well.

reply to post by OldCorp


I agree.
What is not conservative about saying, 'Don't go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war and no other way?' Ron Paul

Arabs want Momar out. May as well let the UN do the dirty work. Just like they all wanted Sadaam out behind the scenes in public they would back him to show their arab support. This whole thing in Libya is not about the people rising up. Hell if he wanted too old momar could crush them like pebbles with his military. Why he hasn't I don't know. He's a kook just like sadaam who thinks the people love him and the "rebels" are foreign fighters. I'm thinking he may be right. Not about the people loving him but the foreign fighters.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
He's a kook just like sadaam who thinks the people love him and the "rebels" are foreign fighters. I'm thinking he may be right. Not about the people loving him but the foreign fighters.

ummmm
wasn't it Gadhaffi who started that
by hiring African mercenaries in
his army ???

Maybe one day, we will find a dictator who actually
does his own fighting.

There are no US warships heading to Libya other than has already been reported in several threads. There is only one US carrier anywhere close, and that is the Enterprise in the Red Sea, too far away at the moment to enforce a no-fly zone, which it couldn't do by itself anyway. The GWH Bush is ready to deploy, but is sitting at Norfolk. It would take a couple of weeks to get there. There is an Amphibious Striek Group based around the Kearsarge that is already in the Med and has been for a couple of weeks now, but it is short staffed.

I believe your 'reliable source' is wrong.

Current Threads:

On the presence of the USS Enterprise

On the presence of the USS Kearsarge

On the USS Bush

On the USS Carl Vinson

reply to post by schuyler

www.lasvegassun.com...

they say there main purpose is for humanitarian assistance but i think u send warships for war. kinda makes sense don't you think?

I believe marines are gearing up for some sort of special ops although that I cannot confirm. They could also be ready to start arming the rebels with much needed weapons and ammo

Source seems credible:

USS Providence

USS Mason

Originally posted by schuyler
There are no US warships heading to Libya other than has already been reported in several threads. There is only one US carrier anywhere close, and that is the Enterprise in the Red Sea, too far away at the moment to enforce a no-fly zone, which it couldn't do by itself anyway. The GWH Bush is ready to deploy, but is sitting at Norfolk. It would take a couple of weeks to get there. There is an Amphibious Striek Group based around the Kearsarge that is already in the Med and has been for a couple of weeks now, but it is short staffed.

I believe you are correct.

Enterprise and Vinson are too far away
and Bush is still in port and Kearsarge
only has 5 Harrior Jump Jets. Not much
of a deterrent to enforce a no-fly zone.

The quickest a no-fly zone could be enforced
would be 2-3 weeks even if ordered.

reply to post by boondock-saint


With 2 more warships headed to the Mediterranean Sea, that brings the total to 6 warships in the region not counting some nuclear subs that my be lurking in the depth. Now not all warships are going to be American and am not saying they will impose a no-fly zone today or tommorow but with more warships headed to the area it's likely possible we will have a no-fly zone over Libya in the coming days.

I think a fleet of 6 US Warship hovering around is a formitable force for any navy.

Originally posted by Warhacks
reply to post by schuyler

 

www.lasvegassun.com...

they say there main purpose is for humanitarian assistance but i think u send warships for war. kinda makes sense don't you think?

No, it does not. The USS Stout, for example, was sent expressly to escort ferry boats evacuating personnel.

I believe marines are gearing up for some sort of special ops although that I cannot confirm. They could also be ready to start arming the rebels with much needed weapons and ammo

As I stated previously, the Kersarge has been in the area for some time and is short staffed. 1500 of their Marines are in Afghanistan. They are nowhere near strong enough to do much and they certainly aren't equipped to enforce a no-fly zone. They "Could" be about to do anything, but that's just speculation.

Source seems credible:

USS Providence
USS Mason

Sure, they are real ships. In fact, they ae part of the Enterprise Strike Group. The USS Providence is a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine designed primarily to hunt nuclear missile submarines or escort a Carrier Strike Group. (Think The Hunt for Red October) We have 43 of those active and they are being slowly retired. It carries torpedoes and a few cruise missiles. The USS Mason is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer (just like the Stout). We have 59 of them floating. They're really guiided missile cruisers and can carry about 90 missiles at one time. It is not uncommon to have a few in the Med at any given time. Neither one of these ships by itself (or even together) could be considered a formidable force.

Now if you get a couple of Carrier Strike Groups off the coast of Libya, that means we're getting serious. But right now, today, US forces arer not in a position to create a no-fly zone, as Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has repeatedly stated.

EDIT TO ADD

Let me add a little bit here. The problem the US has right now is that it wants to keep two carriers in the Arabian Gulf at least 9 months out of the year. This is the "1.7" plan outlined by Gary Roughhead, Chief of Naval Operations. The reason is to keep pressure on Iran, ensure the flow of oil, all the usual culprits. The Carl Vinson is there on a scheduled deployment right now. The Enterprise JUST GOT THERE a few weeks ago, Then Libya hits, so, what to do?

The solution appears to be to park the Enterprise in the Red Sea just south of the Gulf of Suez so it can get to Libya relatively fast if it has to, yet still stay in proximity to the Arabian Gulf. But this last movement of two of the Enterprise Strike Group's ships into the Med shows they're trying to beef up forces in the Med without watering down forces in the Gulf. They cannot leave the Enterprise unprotected, so there must be another sub in the area. Strike Groups tend to have about ten ships altogetehr, but the number os flexible.

The odd thing is that the Bush isn't already there. It could have been. It's "worked up" for a deployment and could have left weeks ago. My guess is any President other than Obama would have had another carrier in there by now. But Obama is content to wait around and see what France and Great Britain will do first. But by dithering like this, we simply cannot do much for at least two weeks. We've lost the flexibility. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't establish a no-fly zone. Leave that to thepoliticians. I am saying that now it's not a matter of intent, but one of capability.

reply to post by OldCorp


You speak as though this is an Arab operation. It's plain as day that the NATO powers want to colonize Libya. Why shouldn't they do their own dirty work?