BF2S Forums The Situation in Libya

Dilbert_X wrote:

They were tasked with enforcing a no-fly zone

The no-fly zone is working

What is your point?

They were tasked with providing all measures short of ground invasion to protect civilians.

This is not working

Its not working.

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?

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.

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.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

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?

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.

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.

So if the US hadn't provided support NATO, or the EU - not sure which you mean - would have either done less or more?

Protecting civilians from the air is impossible - what is your proposal?

Just as further support to the points I was making earlier..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14057337

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.

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.

You know Russia's got to be sitting back and wondering what in the hell they were worried about for all those years.

RAIMIUS wrote:

"Sorry Chaps, we can't fight.  It's not carrier season."

lol, carrier season

I'm assuming they'll be rotating it out for maintenance and painting?

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Just as further support to the points I was making earlier..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14057337

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.

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.

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. 

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)

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.

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.

Shahter wrote:

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.

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.

House still has to approve expenditures to make it happen, which they haven't done.

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.

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 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