Ive counted 7 Jets and 2 Bigger planes, Prestwick

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Itop1

 

My bad.. HMS Westminster which is a Frigate.. As far as the Flag Ship, I was not referring to their Ship of the Line, but the lead vessel for British forces in the task force. There is suppose to be a total of 6 British ships, and the Westminster is the only one named by MSNBC (not CNN my bad).

edit on 19-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Possibly, at the moment Britain have HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland off the north coast of Libya, HMS Westminster was acctually sent to relieve HMS York, I am almost sure HMS Cumberland is the flagship as it is a Class 22 Frigate, they are more ideal as flagship because they have superior command & control and communication facilities... Westminster is a Class 23 Frigate.

www.allvoices.com...

French war planes destroy 4 Libyan tanks in air strikes south west of Benghazi

So far there's no story, only headlines, and I've been listening to fox, and now msnbc, and they've been talking about how they have taken out these 4 tanks for about a 1/2 hour or hour now.

It has begun.

update: 1823: The Daily Telegraph's Rob Crilly in Benghazi tweets: "There's some sort of frigate or destroyer lying off coast but too far out to tell who/what it is. Security guys think is unfriendly #libya"


1836: Tripolitanian tweets: "Women in #Benghazi are now wielding #AK47s - preparing to fight #Gaddafi"

Update: 1904: A US defence official tells Reuters that the US Navy has three submarines in the Mediterranean preparing for operations in Libya

Breaking News!! (Aljazeera)

Confirmed reports that US Warships have launched Cruise Missiles against Libya,

( Detailed Info: From Pentagon: Key first strikes are against coastal intergrated missiles defence systems and airfields, second wave against targetting gaddafi tanks and ground forces *Odasey Dawn operation name* USS Mount Whitney in the med )

and unconfirmed reports that civilians in tripoli are comming under attack from gaddafi forces

Cameron has just made statement from Downing Street-was very short and said that British military action in Libya was now in full swing.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Obama keeps yapping about no "ground troops". Which doesn't really mean special forces since they aren't technically "ground troops". They're sure pretty jumpy whenever someone mentions troops.

reply to post by billxam


Yeah ive noticed that as well.. Ive seen some media outlets go into the no troops thing coupled with countries in the M.E. not all that keen on American Military presence. Speculation is to get the point across this is not a "unilateral US" action, but a UN action lead by Europeans and Middle East nations.

As far as the ships off the coast go, Pentagon briefing was talking about 112 missiles being launched. I didnt get all the finite details on that (cruise missiles or what). I am assuming since it was the Pentagon that they were American.

This is pretty intresting for a few reasons, but the one glaring discrepancy I see is the no fly zone itself. All of the UN no fly zone resolutions specifically dealt with stopping the targeted country from using air assets. It allowed UN forces to only defend against attacks from the ground.

In this case, UN aircraft are authorized to engage ground targets regardless if they were fired on, removing the defense provision and allowing an offenseive action.

Essentially the UN just sided with the rebels and is actively assisting to over throw the Libyan Government.

I am curious if this is going to be a one time fluke, or if its the start of a new doctrine... If its a start, then Pandoras Box is going to be opened and anytime the citizens of a country do mass demonstrations to remove their government, the UN will be right there with them.

China....Iran.....Syria....Saudi Arabia..... Bahrain....etc etc etc etc...


While ive always complained about the UN being spinless, does anyone else think the pendulum just massively swung into the opposite direction? Have we finally reached a point in the affairs of the planet that actions are going to replace words now?

Good thing? Bad thing?

The missiles were fired from both US and British ships, and i personally cant see a whole lot comming from this, i know there are some people screaming that this is the start of World War 3.... but ask yourself, how many times have we seen people say this?? libya is a country without friends, this is not the start of a world war at all, and i wish people would stop fear mongering about it.

reply to post by Itop1


I dont think its the start of WWIII at all.. I am curious though, as I pointed out in the post above, if this is something new we are going to be seeing more of - essentially military involvement when only humanitarian needs are present.

I am curious if this is just a one time thing with Libya, if its going to be one of those maybe we will maybe we wont type set up, or if its going to be something we will be seeing a lot more of.

As a side note is anyone watching the DoD footage released with the cruise missile launch? It almost looks like the DoD pulled video footage from the 1st gulf war and slapped a new date on it lol.

Also saw the pentagon briefing update.. Looks like the F-22 might be used for the first time.

Originally posted by Free4Ever2
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Ive a feeling this could get very messy, I just dont understand why people wont learn from the past, war solves nothing!

People have learned from the past. And what the past has taught them about war is that war is $$$. It all started after WWII. America brought itself out of the great depression and became a world power by becoming a manufacturing behemoth supplying the Allies with war material.

It's all part of the Military Industrial Complex. Ever since WWII the world has been at pretty much a constant state of warfare. Every decade world leaders find a reason to start a war, just to keep the economic war machine well oiled and running hot.

Plus, your average citizenry may have learned that war is back and have learned from the past. The sole reason for this is because it is your average citizenry that suffers from war. They are are ones that fight and die for the cause of some wealthy businessman or company/industry so that they can make more money. Their profits are paid for by the blood of our young but they sugarcoat the purpose for war with heaping amounts of nationalism with a dash of patriotism, and a sprinkling of animosity. It's worked time and time again.