Allied Forces Begin Military Action Against Libya - Live Updates

We are close to the point where Gaddafi makes a speech whereby he could be a martyr if he wanted to but because he is concerned for the well being of his country and does not want to shed more blood of his fellow countryment (including the "traitors" [rebels]) that he seeks to negotiate his departure in safety and with some of his spoils from a generation of looting the country from within. Where will he go? Venezuela, Brazil (Obama likes it there), Germany or Russia (the latter two abstained fr the No Fly resolution at the UN)....

reply to post by Danbones


Put up or shut up dan. Alot of hot air about stuff that is, to be honest, made up fantasies.

Nothing new from you, of course, but at least take the time to try and make it look like you have made a reasoned and well founded argument.

Ghaddafi could do like Saddam who agreed to leave did:
Change his mind because he found out the uS was planning to shoot down his plane anyway..
after giving their word on the deal.



This is just like the German invasion of Poland or the Gulf of Tonkin....
fake fake fake
same old ame old

reply to post by stumason


Israeli mercs fighting for Ghadaffi
the sas are all over the news
your point
mine herr?

reply to post by JakiusFogg


The only difference between the Bush and Obama administrations' views on war is that the Bush war government bragged about how it went behind the UN's back, and the Obama war government is bragging about how it got UN approval.

I don't entirely understand the motive behind this NATO action. I get that there is oil in Libya, and Gaddafi is, if not hostile, disrespectful to Europeans. I don't see why this is happening. Are the Europeans really so keen on removing Gaddafi just to get marginally better deals on his nation's small oil production? Or does Libya have some resources that we don't know about? Or is this war even about resources? It doesn't seem to be worth the investment.

The strategy that NATO is using in Libya doesn't really make sense to me, either. The no-fly zone is surely meant to give air cover to the rebels, and aid them by destroying important pro-Gaddafi ground targets. However, the rebellion appears to have been defeated already; do they have the martial vigour to stand up and try again, now that the Europeans have finally arrived? For that matter, why target Libya now, why aid rebels that Gaddafi claims are in league with al-Qaeda? Is it because the protests across the M-E provide cover, and make it seem normal for a rebellion to arise in Libya? That would explain NATO's rush to action, but does it explain their interest in Libyan regime change?

More likely than not, this is about Mediterranean security. I think that explains best why Italy, France, Spain, and Britain (Gibraltar) are interested in this. Turning the Mediterranean into a "European lake" as they had done during the Colonial Age would secure Europe against foreign threats.

I can't see this action being very successful without a NATO ground force invading Libya as well. The rebels might not be reliable, even if they get reinforced by mercenaries (mercenaries can be unreliable, since they have no real stake in the outcome!). If NATO invades, however, they will awaken the nation's memories of colonialism, and vindicate everything that Gaddafi claimed and stood for to a new generation of Libyans who do not remember the colonial days. Moreover, it could be a very difficult invasion, especially if counter-colonial partisans flood into the country from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt. Ousting Gaddafi will create a power vaccuum, and someone much worse may fill it. Who knows if it will be a European favourite that fills it? Who knows if a colonial invasion can succeed? Consider the Algerian war of independence; do the Europeans have the might and morale to defeat a sustained guerilla/terrorist resistance in Libya?

reply to post by Heros_son


Oh I understand that position, however are we saying then that this is still execution of US Policy by proxy.

Again I am suspect as to why France have been extremely eager to get into this, US led or not. That's what doesn't pass the smell test.

The official reasons do not, in my mind, fit with the normal French MO.

Random Update 7:41 p.m., but striking parallels: 19 March 2003 was also the date on which President Bush ordered U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

link for above post

French President Accused of Working for Israeli Intelligence
As if his marital challenges were not enough cause for concern, "Sarco the Sayan" has suddenly emerged as the most infamous accolade of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The influential French daily Le Figaro last week revealed that the French leader once worked for -- and perhaps still does, it hinted -- Israeli intelligence as a sayan (Hebrew for helper), one of the thousands of Jewish citizens of countries other than Israel who cooperate with the katsas (Mossad case-officers).

www.toutsaufsarkozy.com...

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


From the European perspective this is a complete 180 in a very short period of time.

OK so the rebels start and risk civil war in Libya. Look at the number of foreign nationals that had to be evacuated. It is not as though Libya was a tourist destination, like Egypt or Tunisia.

Fact remains allot of multinational corporations in there, and in the last years it was almost like if Gadaffi was become, "out" dictator in Libya. A lot of back room deals going on. including the Lockerbie bomber, with links to deals with BP.

However, after all the armed fun in the Mideast starting, it only serves political interests to get this sorted out as soon as possible.

What's the best option, well Gaddiffi was attacking "civilians" (armed and with aircraft it seems) so they could not be seen to be supporting that. So, as the EU statement proclaims in it's first paragraph

Regime change. IMO that's all it is.

Just worries about potential to destablise the region completely. Eyes on Iran and the Shia population over there, and what Israel will do in reaction, if they feel left out by this.

7:53 p.m. Update Below the full statement of Russia that the military action in Libya 'regrets':

"In Moscow we deplore the armed intervention, made ​​possible by UN Resolution 1973 was adopted in haste. We are convinced that the bloodshed must be stopped quickly and the Libyans have to talk to each other for this internal conflict to a permanent conclusion. "

The Russians ALWAYS deplore the use of force. Unless of course they are the ones using it!

1901 GMT: Sky News: US Military confirm 3 x US Submarines in Mediterranean preparing for action.

Cruise missiles?

Yep!! Foxnews said earlier that after nightfall the US is expected to launch Tomahawks.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
1901 GMT: Sky News: US Military confirm 3 x US Submarines in Mediterranean preparing for action.

Cruise missiles?

reply to post by JakiusFogg


I wonder if this will work out like the no-fly zones in Iraq; maintained for ten years, they were part of an international effort to contain and destroy Iraq through attrition. They were deplored by Boutros Boutros-Ghali as illegal, and were probably forced through the UN by NATO. Is this the goal of NATO in Libya, to begin a long war of attrition until Libya is finally so weakened that even the French could invade and win?

Did you know that by law the US guarantees israel's oil supply - no matter what?

current.com...

Israel's oil situation.
www.slate.com...

They know the plan which they have stated is underway.
Israel must lock up local oil
since the arabs won't be pumping much in the near futer,,,

But hey
believe what you want.


chickens do come home to roost.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Heros_son

 

Again I am suspect as to why France have been extremely eager to get into this, US led or not. That's what doesn't pass the smell test.

The official reasons do not, in my mind, fit with the normal French MO.

I understand better your position, now.

I remember there is a history of France in that region, involving the annexation of the Aozou Strip. I believe Chad and Libya were involved and there was a coup. The last I've heard of any action though was nearly 20 years ago.

Could there be an angle there?

reply to post by princeofpeace


Just reminded me, there was a report yesterday or the day before in the Irish papers of US moving B-52 out of bases in the UK.

Now, that is a serious piece or hardware to be using if they do! pretty random also

Update 8:07 p.m. Three U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean by preparing an anonymous U.S. official for operations in Libya. (Reuters)

9:04pm The US Navy has three submarines stationed in the Mediterranean Sea that are preparing for operations against Libya, a US defence official has told Reuters.

The Associated Press earlier reported that while the US did not intend to use fighter jets in the initial stages of the conflict in Libya, they would use sea-based assets to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan air defences.

AJE

French in the sky, Americans in the sea.

Update 8:02 p.m. The United States would later today to carry a rocket attack on the Libyan aircraft guns. Diplomats say. (AP)