Allied Forces Begin Military Action Against Libya - Live Updates

reply to post by mikemike2424


Yeah, just like the people of Zimbabwe are in need? Or North Koreans? Or the Burmese? etc etc.

Yeah, I suppose they were just abandoned.

France? You mean the same France that was instrumental in America winning the War of Independence?

I know you'll immediately retort with World War I and World War II. In World War I, America joined in 1917 and didn't make a major impact until 1918, with much of their equipment being supplied by the French. However their valuable contribution is noted.

In the Second World War all three major allies, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States needed each other. However once again America's contribution is duly noted, as is the huge blood sacrifice of the Soviet Union's 25 million dead.

I believe you're next point will be Vietnam and you're welcome to that one, as it was quite frankly a debacle, much as Afghanistan and Iraq were and Libya seems rapidly to be turning into.

However this thread is not for slanging matches about which country is best and what America has and has not done in wars throughtout it's history.

A group of rebel fighters positioned about 9km from the entrance of Ajdabiya said there were 11 tanks stationed at the town's east gate, AFP reports. "When we try to advance they shoot at us with heavy weapons -- tanks and 14.5 calibre machine guns," they quote one fighter as saying. "All we have are Kalashnikovs

BBC News

A Libyan government press trip to inspect some of the damage from bombing raids seems to have hit a snag. CNN correspondent Nic Robertson, in Tripoli, tweets: "Govt officials taking journalists into east Tripoli are lost and can't find the so-called damaged house. Just driving around."

BBC News

Hello friends. I was just curious if anyone really has an answer as to why we choose to "free" certain people for example the libyans and yet leave others who are just as much in need helpless? Is their a valid reason for this in anyones eyes? I just dont see if we are gonna police the world and meddle in places we have no business how is it right that we get to pick and choose? I mean who will be the lucky recipient of our next "freedom package" where we bomb your country then come in and "free" you and make money off rebuilding your country?? Just curious.

reply to post by AmerikanDekline


Well that's a question that's ran throughout this thread. It's one many people are asking and one we're not really getting an answer to. Well not an answer that satisfies me anyway....

I've heard theories that this is an oil war, another theory is that it's for water.

Regardless, I don't agree with it because of the double standards and lack of consistency towards various countries.

They can profess it's to protect civilians all they want. But the whole thing stinks to me.

Wow yet another war from All ciada, first they start an uprise, then they bomb the crap out of Libya in the name of freedom, Of course it's all for freedom VS oil.

Although the coalition has insisted there will be no boots on the ground, American ships in the Mediterranean – on standby to carry out humanitarian operations – are also crammed with Humvees, armoured trucks and weaponry and are capable of delivering hundreds of Marines to beach landings.

Libya: Gaddafi's air force has "been destroyed"

This particular passage caught my eye. Is it standard procedure for American ships to float around carrying vast amounts of armoured vehicles and weapons, e.g. humvees? Or is this just some sort of precaution? Do they really need this huge amount of military equipment for "humanitarian operations"?

reply to post by Kram09


From the same source. Bold emphasis mine.

Meanwhile, a US military official said the wreckage of an F-15 fighter jet that went down in eastern Libya on Tuesday had been bombed "to prevent materials from getting into the wrong hands." Despite previous denials, a military source told The Daily Telegraph that as the pilot was rescued, strafing runs were carried out and two Harriers dropped two 500lb bombs on a convoy of Libyan vehicles.The cannon fire could explain why several civilians were injured by bullets fired during the mission near Benghazi.

Russia believes a ground invasion of Libya is almost a certainty, Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko has told Itar-Tass news agency. "There is no co-ordinated plan in place and the operation can drag on," he said.

BBC News

"I've always believed that the mission determines the coalition, and the coalition not ought to determine the mission," he explained. Rumsfeld also questions President Obama's "reluctant leadership" and advance planning, while critiquing the overall U.S. response. "I suspect that one of the reasons that the administration didn't go to Congress is they didn't know what to ask for."

Rumsfeld: Libya coalition might be in trouble

On the one hand, the leaders of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela have criticized the mission as being a foreign intervention in a domestic Libyan conflict. At the same time, countries such as Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Panama, and Peru have backed the military action to varying degrees. Colombia, for example, voted in favor of the resolution, while others abstained from taking a position.

Latin American leaders react to Libya conflict

An international conference is to be held in London next week to take stock of developments in Libya and discuss the command structure for the allied military operations.

London to host Libya conference

reply to post by Kram09


How much you wanna bet that the conclusion of that conference will end up with ground troops ending up in the fray

reply to post by TKDRL


I hope not.

But they don't seem to have any coherent strategy other than bombing Gaddafi's forces and as has been proved time and again, air power can only achieve so much.

Outside of allied aircraft it's up to the rebels to strike at Gaddafi on the ground, but it seems they're incapable of doing so right now....or at least in any decisive manner.

reply to post by Kram09


Thanks for the reply! Yeah iv'e heard a lot of people saying its about oil too idk though wouldn't it make sense that mabye it's more about the transport of oil rather than oil since the places we are occupying are along the coast?

reply to post by AmerikanDekline


I'm not sure anymore, to be honest.

Your guess is as good as any.

Considering the relationship with the muslim world after Afghanistan and Iraq it would seem preposterous to launch action against Libya. But it seems that's exactly what the west has done....

One positive side of troops going in at least they get a bit of target practice

reply to post by Itop1


What?

Please....don't troll.

Oh dear...

2010: Omar A. tweets: "#Gaddafi tanks are now bombing the #Misratahospital!!!!!! #Libya #feb17

reply to post by Itop1


hahah wow really?

i hope you are trying to be funny

which if you are isnt because i fail to see the humor in people dying