They were tasked with enforcing a no-fly zone
The no-fly zone is working
What is your point?
The no-fly zone is working
What is your point?
Fuck Israel
They were tasked with providing all measures short of ground invasion to protect civilians.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were tasked with enforcing a no-fly zone
The no-fly zone is working
What is your point?
This is not working
Its not working.
Pretty hard to protect individual civilians in cities from the air, especially if they decide to attack the army.
So you're saying the UK should invade Libya?
So you're saying the UK should invade Libya?
Fuck Israel
It is pretty hard, well done. However it is easier than going in on foot (which we cant due to other commitments) and getting all the negative PR that people like yourself normally champion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty hard to protect individual civilians in cities from the air, especially if they decide to attack the army.
So you're saying the UK should invade Libya?
Perhaps this is why NATO keeps hitting Libyan armored columns en route to cities?
Im saying that if USA hadnt supported the EU with this (hell even taken a leading role) then the EU would have struggled in accomplish anything and would have had to either pull out or get much more heavy handed.
What's this "US" bullshit? Last time I checked, Libya was a Euro party.Dilbert_X wrote:
Whatever, the UN resolution says its a no-fly zone and not an invasion.
As we know you can't effect regime change from the air, or really protect civilians, if the US wants to invade then please go right ahead.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So if the US hadn't provided support NATO, or the EU - not sure which you mean - would have either done less or more?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
It is pretty hard, well done. However it is easier than going in on foot (which we cant due to other commitments) and getting all the negative PR that people like yourself normally champion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty hard to protect individual civilians in cities from the air, especially if they decide to attack the army.
So you're saying the UK should invade Libya?
Perhaps this is why NATO keeps hitting Libyan armored columns en route to cities?
Im saying that if USA hadnt supported the EU with this (hell even taken a leading role) then the EU would have struggled in accomplish anything and would have had to either pull out or get much more heavy handed.
Protecting civilians from the air is impossible - what is your proposal?
Fuck Israel
Just as further support to the points I was making earlier..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14057337
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14057337
So the UK is going to have no carrier capability at all for 10 years and then they will have 1 that will be operational for 6 - 8 months of the year. All this for a little over £10bn.The National Audit Office has expressed deep concern about changes to the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers made in the 2010 defence review.
The NAO queries whether the changes represent value for money and points out there will be a decade-long gap without aircraft carrier capability.
The Whitehall spending watchdog pointed out the decision to make only one carrier with aircraft operational means the UK will only have a carrier at sea for between 150 and 200 days per year - meaning it will rely heavily on allies to fill the gap.
I hear Obama has put a price on the head of Megrasset.
Not sure what that will achieve since the US and UK were happy to chum-up with Gadhaffi himself.
Not sure what that will achieve since the US and UK were happy to chum-up with Gadhaffi himself.
Fuck Israel
You know Russia's got to be sitting back and wondering what in the hell they were worried about for all those years.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
"Sorry Chaps, we can't fight. It's not carrier season."
lol, carrier seasonRAIMIUS wrote:
"Sorry Chaps, we can't fight. It's not carrier season."
I'm assuming they'll be rotating it out for maintenance and painting?
Interesting that the US House of Reps has voted against letting the Pentagon supply arms and training to Libyan rebels. Seems lessons have been learned from all the times this ended up biting the US in the arse, notably with Saddam and Osama. Well done.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
You're sharing future carrier capabilities with France though, they're building one too, similar in design to the QE Carrier. I don't think any European country will operate alone in the future as noone has the capacity to sustain a deployment of considerable size or duration. Evidently what our governments are supposed to be doing is integrate the various armed forces, though at the pace that has been going it may take another 200 years. I don't think we have that much time... as usual nobody in Europe starts doing anything until shit hits the fan.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Just as further support to the points I was making earlier..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14057337So the UK is going to have no carrier capability at all for 10 years and then they will have 1 that will be operational for 6 - 8 months of the year. All this for a little over £10bn.The National Audit Office has expressed deep concern about changes to the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers made in the 2010 defence review.
The NAO queries whether the changes represent value for money and points out there will be a decade-long gap without aircraft carrier capability.
The Whitehall spending watchdog pointed out the decision to make only one carrier with aircraft operational means the UK will only have a carrier at sea for between 150 and 200 days per year - meaning it will rely heavily on allies to fill the gap.
Then there's the problem that even if they integrate all the armed forces there's still multiple language barriers to overcome which massively limits efficiency and which may cause disasters due to stuff getting lost in the translation. Not to mention that every country seems to have different military hardware further complicating an already messy cooperation.
Honestly if they want to do it right they should just start over and have every country contribute a set % of their GDP to a multi-national force. Already have a great example of how something like that could work being the FFL. Doubt that will ever happen though.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-08 03:09:33)
inane little opines
Thats kind of where I was heading. Yes we are supposed to be sharing capability with France but if nothing else Libya has demonstrated that Europe is useless as sharing capabilities with the possible alternative that everybody wants to do the nice / cheap / easy bits and expects another country to pickup the less popular / more expensive aspects. Without a co-ordinate effort across the board these expensive bits are being completely missed and we need the US to supply them otherwise we cannot operate.Shocking wrote:
You're sharing future carrier capabilities with France though, they're building one too, similar in design to the QE Carrier. I don't think any European country will operate alone in the future as noone has the capacity to sustain a deployment of considerable size or duration. Evidently what our governments are supposed to be doing is integrate the various armed forces, though at the pace that has been going it may take another 200 years. I don't think we have that much time... as usual nobody in Europe starts doing anything until shit hits the fan.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Just as further support to the points I was making earlier..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14057337So the UK is going to have no carrier capability at all for 10 years and then they will have 1 that will be operational for 6 - 8 months of the year. All this for a little over £10bn.The National Audit Office has expressed deep concern about changes to the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers made in the 2010 defence review.
The NAO queries whether the changes represent value for money and points out there will be a decade-long gap without aircraft carrier capability.
The Whitehall spending watchdog pointed out the decision to make only one carrier with aircraft operational means the UK will only have a carrier at sea for between 150 and 200 days per year - meaning it will rely heavily on allies to fill the gap.
Then there's the problem that even if they integrate all the armed forces there's still multiple language barriers to overcome which massively limits efficiency and which may cause disasters due to stuff getting lost in the translation. Not to mention that every country seems to have different military hardware further complicating an already messy cooperation.
Honestly if they want to do it right they should just start over and have every country contribute a set % of their GDP to a multi-national force. Already have a great example of how something like that could work being the FFL. Doubt that will ever happen though.
Its a shambles and all of the member states are due to further decrease their military budgets in the short to mid term thereby exacerbating an already pretty dire situation.
there are so many ways for usa to get weapons supplied to the rebels without direct pentagon involvement that there's really no need to bother.Ty wrote:
Interesting that the US House of Reps has voted against letting the Pentagon supply arms and training to Libyan rebels. Seems lessons have been learned from all the times this ended up biting the US in the arse, notably with Saddam and Osama. Well done.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
The sad part is that (almost) everyone understands this yet noone is willing to do something about it. After Bosnia it became apparant that basically, the EU militaries suck and all they did was draw up a 'battlegroup' initiative which really doesn't amount to anything. Here we are again, almost 20 years later with a very similar situation and I doubt they'll do anything this time around either.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Thats kind of where I was heading. Yes we are supposed to be sharing capability with France but if nothing else Libya has demonstrated that Europe is useless as sharing capabilities with the possible alternative that everybody wants to do the nice / cheap / easy bits and expects another country to pickup the less popular / more expensive aspects. Without a co-ordinate effort across the board these expensive bits are being completely missed and we need the US to supply them otherwise we cannot operate.
Its a shambles and all of the member states are due to further decrease their military budgets in the short to mid term thereby exacerbating an already pretty dire situation.
Perhaps if the US leaves NATO (thereby ending NATO pretty much) that will spur European countries to work on their own defense.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-08 04:03:41)
inane little opines
House still has to approve expenditures to make it happen, which they haven't done.Shahter wrote:
there are so many ways for usa to get weapons supplied to the rebels without direct pentagon involvement that there's really no need to bother.Ty wrote:
Interesting that the US House of Reps has voted against letting the Pentagon supply arms and training to Libyan rebels. Seems lessons have been learned from all the times this ended up biting the US in the arse, notably with Saddam and Osama. Well done.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Illegal war... Just imagine if Bush did it.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Perhaps not particularly relevant to the Libya part of the discussion but http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14181145 we are to make 20% of our troops redundant after over stretching them for the last decade.
I guess the idea is not to go in on foot anywhere else and just bomb them instead. At least if we dont have any troops then there wont be the temptation.
I guess the idea is not to go in on foot anywhere else and just bomb them instead. At least if we dont have any troops then there wont be the temptation.
What war? But yea, you're right.13rin wrote:
Illegal war... Just imagine if Bush did it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Its a bit early to be recognising the rebels as the legitimate govt of Libya I think, don't they have to hold an election first?
I thought that was how democracy worked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju … ion-russia
I thought that was how democracy worked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju … ion-russia
Fuck Israel
lol democracy
lol
lol
i think the end has begun.
some reuters tweets:
Anti-Gaddafi protests in Tripoli streets: residents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ … 4M20110820
FLASH: Tripoli residents receive text messages urging them to "go out into streets to eliminate agents with weapons", says resident
not reuters
Gadaffi Gone : Tripoli Post http://t.co/4YIWARU
some reuters tweets:
Anti-Gaddafi protests in Tripoli streets: residents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ … 4M20110820
FLASH: Tripoli residents receive text messages urging them to "go out into streets to eliminate agents with weapons", says resident
not reuters
Gadaffi Gone : Tripoli Post http://t.co/4YIWARU
A Syrian pro-democracy channel (is there even such a thing?) called Barada TV is claiming Gaddafi is dead in Tripoli.