So, the latest country to be engulfed by revolutionary action is Libya, home of everyone's favourite crackpot dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi. Up until last week, protests and demonstrations had been largely sporadic, but over the last few days the situation has intensified greatly. Protesters are (allegedly) being being machine-gunned and there are claims of several hundred deaths. Benghazi is under the de facto control of the rebels, and Saif Gaddafi made a rambling appearance on Libyan TV last night, making dire warnings of civil war and possible foreign occupation.
First Tunisia, then Egypt... there's trouble throughout North Africa, and it seems to be spreading east, with Bahrain looking wobbly and Yemen in disarray.
So, is Libya next? What will the fall-out be?
BBC wrote:
Libya protests: Col Gaddafi under mounting pressure
Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime is under pressure amid unprecedented protests in the Libyan capital and defections by senior diplomats.
Protesters out on the streets of Tripoli late on Sunday were met by security forces using live ammunition and tear gas.
Benghazi, the country's second city, now appears to be largely under the control of protesters.
But Col Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, has warned that civil war could ignite.
In a lengthy TV address, he offered significant political reforms but also vowed that the regime would "fight to the last bullet" against "seditious elements".
'Massacre'
On Monday, reports from Tripoli suggested the streets were mainly quiet, with government forces still patrolling Green Square after crushing protests in what witnesses called a "massacre".
A central government building, the People's Hall, was said to have been set ablaze and firefighters were trying to put out the flames.
Libya's envoy to the Arab League, Abdel Moneim al-Honi, announced he was "joining the revolution" and its ambassador to India, Ali al-Essawi, told the BBC he was resigning in protest at his government's violent crackdown on demonstrators.
Mohamed Bayou, who until a month ago was chief spokesman for the Libyan government, said the leadership was wrong to threaten violence against its opponents. He made his comments in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency which appeared to indicate disagreement within the ruling elite.
In another blow to Col Gaddafi's rule, two tribes - including Libya's largest tribe, the Warfla - have backed the protesters.
Human Rights Watch says at least 233 people have died since last Thursday, though in his speech, Saif Gaddafi insisted reports of the death toll had been exaggerated.
The US, UK and French governments are among those which have condemned the harsh treatment of protesters.
Slightly off-topic, but the Sunday Times was reporting that Abdelset al-Meghrahi is probably about a fortnight from death. Good.
It's a tough call to make, he might cave in to international and internal pressure, or he might just do what Mahmoud did in Iran and simply keep on malleting the protesters. Shoot enough, and they stop.
And knowing the colonel... it might just be the latter.
I think I'm right in thinking that Gaddafi's grip/control/influence on the military is a lot stonger than Mubarak's was? Or at the least, Mubarak ruled with the assistance of key army generals whereas I think Gaddafi has much more direct control.
I can see this getting a lot bloodier than it is so far. According to the BBC reports this morning, there is a huge uprising in progress, nearly all the Libyan tribes have come out against Gaddafi and I think his only response will be with military force.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something else that struck me as well was that one of the justifications for the US going to war in Vietnam was fear of the so-called 'Domino Theory' which now appears to be the very same reason the middle east has erupted in flames...
Unstable Middle Eastern and African nations causing international security uncertainty?
Oil supplies threatened?
Tin-pot dictators running their countries into the ground?
You need a controlling force, somebody to set the priorities.
People with class and culture.
You need; The New British Empire.
Our six point scheme to re-instate good and proper control, in new and old territories, has been scientifically proven to be the best course of action.
You savages will never have had it so good!
Join NOW!
We should just leave them to it. As long as the oil flows, who really cares?
The West really needs to stop being International Rescue.
Exploding Oil Field at the end of the video... spooky.
Melissia wrote:I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
No, I agree that running for his life is VERY smart move! He's just not that smart in general.
In other news: The Libyan UN representative has urged 'international action'. Uh-oh....
Much like everything else representatives from libya urge, this will be ignored. The west has done a great job of wringing its hands of these dictators so far, its highly unlikely anyone will do anything except support the rebels through speeches or call for peaceful negotiations.
Melissia wrote:I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
No, I agree that running for his life is VERY smart move! He's just not that smart in general.
In other news: The Libyan UN representative has urged 'international action'. Uh-oh....
Much like everything else representatives from libya urge, this will be ignored. The west has done a great job of wringing its hands of these dictators so far, its highly unlikely anyone will do anything except support the rebels through speeches or call for peaceful negotiations.
I dunno man, seems to be getting pretty serious over there. WAY more violence than in the case of Egypt. There may be no choice but for the UN to get involved, certainly to put in place the no-fly zone that the Libyan delegation requested...
Unconfirmed reports coming in:
BBC wrote:
1754: Al-Jazeera is quoting Tripoli residents as saying Libyan warplanes are bombing locations in the capital. It's important to note that while we have reliable reports of fires in Tripoli, as well as aircraft overhead, it is not possible to confirm such reports at this stage.
1742: All Italian air bases have been placed on maximum alert, the Italian news agency Ansa reports. The alert comes after two Libyan fighter jets apparently fleeing unrest in Libya landed in nearby Malta.
Melissia wrote:I thought you said he was running away when you said that . Which I think WOULD be a rather smart move, but meh, YMMV.
No, I agree that running for his life is VERY smart move! He's just not that smart in general.
In other news: The Libyan UN representative has urged 'international action'. Uh-oh....
Much like everything else representatives from libya urge, this will be ignored. The west has done a great job of wringing its hands of these dictators so far, its highly unlikely anyone will do anything except support the rebels through speeches or call for peaceful negotiations.
I dunno man, seems to be getting pretty serious over there. WAY more violence than in the case of Egypt. There may be no choice but for the UN to get involved, certainly to put in place the no-fly zone that the Libyan delegation requested...
Unconfirmed reports coming in:
BBC wrote: 1754: Al-Jazeera is quoting Tripoli residents as saying Libyan warplanes are bombing locations in the capital. It's important to note that while we have reliable reports of fires in Tripoli, as well as aircraft overhead, it is not possible to confirm such reports at this stage.
1742: All Italian air bases have been placed on maximum alert, the Italian news agency Ansa reports. The alert comes after two Libyan fighter jets apparently fleeing unrest in Libya landed in nearby Malta.
If all it took was repressive violence to get involved militarily in north egypt we would of been there decades ago. The situation is far too messy for a military peacekeeping solution, about the best we could hope for would be to strong arm Ghadaffi into calling for his forces to stand down. That hasn't worked well in too many cases previously.
Flashman wrote:Well if armed assistance is required, I don't see us wading into this one (not in force anyway) and surely America can't fight a war on three fronts?!
Sad as it may be, I suspect the west will let this one burn itself out.
Well, there ARE other countries in the UN. Apparently.
The leader of one of the largest tribes in libya, which covers a large portion of the populace, did an interview on BBC News this morning, and halfway through called for open rebellion...
Medium of Death wrote:Something on the BBC news about the Rebels declaring the city of Benghazi as a seperate Islamic Emirate. Or something along those lines.
Looking at the UAE (Abu Dhabi, Dubai etc.) it could be quite good if Libya goes that way. Each tribe/social group getting it's own mini-state.
Although the sheer size of Libya might prove to be a problem. Just thought showering.
So, do we support a legitimate nation state or do we support rebels in their cause?.
I still can't figure out why all of a sudden all the revolutions. Who will take control? Will they be more western friendly, or will the countries fall into the hands of extremists?
Medium of Death wrote:Something on the BBC news about the Rebels declaring the city of Benghazi as a seperate Islamic Emirate. Or something along those lines.
Looking at the UAE (Abu Dhabi, Dubai etc.) it could be quite good if Libya goes that way. Each tribe/social group getting it's own mini-state.
Although the sheer size of Libya might prove to be a problem. Just thought showering.
So, do we support a legitimate nation state or do we support rebels in their cause?.
Legitimate nation state is kind of a risky term considering the state of Libya and it's governance before this.
We'll I guess it's either; Prop the G Dawg up, make the people resent the West for doing so. Or let them get on with it, with the potential that they elect people that hate the West anyway (big change).
rryannn wrote:I still can't figure out why all of a sudden all the revolutions. Who will take control? Will they be more western friendly, or will the countries fall into the hands of extremists?
As I understand it, the global economic crash has hit Northern Africa which has made the life (which wasn't that great to start with) pretty hard for their populations. Iran style Islamic states are a possibility in some countries (maybe more so in Libya), but unlikely in Egypt and Tunisia which are quite moderate.
Frankly, once you get to the point where you have to bomb you own capital city to try and suppress dissent, you have lost by any measure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rryannn wrote:I still can't figure out why all of a sudden all the revolutions. Who will take control? Will they be more western friendly, or will the countries fall into the hands of extremists?
To give a very broad brush portrait of the situation, after WW2 the colonial powers in the region, mainly Britain and France, were ousted by a combination of US pressure and economic necessity. The regimes which took control in the various Arab states were undemocratic, based on either monarchical systems or dictatorial systems, depending on whether they were clients of the west (USA and allies) or Soviet Union. Israel being the only exception, and arguably Jordan.
This process began in the late 40s and was completed by the late 60s.
Various attempts at secularisation, modernisation and Islamicisation did not conceal the fact that by the new century, many of these states were economically and politically moribund, and could not satisfy the aspirations of the mass of people for an improved life.
Then by natural process of time, the old dictators and kings began to weaken or die off, and seek to pass their power on to unelected descendants.
Seeing no hope of a better future under the sons of the corrupt elite, the people are revolting.
It is hard to say which countries might fall into the hands of extremists. Both principles and pragmatism warn the west to keep their hands out of this particular pot. If extremists are elected, we will have to deal with them, we won't get away with trying to coerce things. That is what got these countries into the mess in the first place.
Kilkrazy wrote:It is hard to say which countries might fall into the hands of extremists. Both principles and pragmatism warn the west to keep their hands out of this particular pot. If extremists are elected, we will have to deal with them, we won't get away with trying to coerce things. That is what got these countries into the mess in the first place.
Flashman wrote:Ok, respect to some Libyan fighter pilots, who upon receiving orders to bomb protesters flew their planes to Malta and defected.
I'm surprised more haven't to be quite honest. What manner of soldier would be happy accepting and carrying out orders to shell and shoot their own people?
A lot of the BBC reports seem to suggest that there are large groups of mercenaries roaming the streets, shooting at protesters. Although, worryingly, some accounts suggest that artillery is shelling the cities, which would imply that the army have been given/are carrying out orders to attack the populous.
Unless there is international intervention I don't think Qaddafi is going anywhere, not that I'm saying that we should intervene.
If the Government is willing to use planes and helicopters against protesters I don't think it looks good for the prospect of reform. I guess he didn't go to Venezuela either.
filbert wrote:I'm surprised more haven't to be quite honest. What manner of soldier would be happy accepting and carrying out orders to shell and shoot their own people?
The kind who lives high on the hog because the military has the total support of the dictator in chief and a threat to said dictator is a threat to their status.
filbert wrote:I'm surprised more haven't to be quite honest. What manner of soldier would be happy accepting and carrying out orders to shell and shoot their own people?
The kind who lives high on the hog because the military has the total support of the dictator in chief and a threat to said dictator is a threat to their status.
Which is unlikely to be the average low ranking office and NCO...
Unless there is international intervention I don't think Qaddafi is going anywhere, not that I'm saying that we should intervene.
If the Government is willing to use planes and helicopters against protesters I don't think it looks good for the prospect of reform. I guess he didn't go to Venezuela either.
Apparently large chunks of the army have turned on him, which means that he has essentially lost.
The question, then, is what will replace him. In general the violent overthrow of authoritarians leads to a government that is every bit as directive as the one that it replaced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:
Tyyr wrote:
filbert wrote:I'm surprised more haven't to be quite honest. What manner of soldier would be happy accepting and carrying out orders to shell and shoot their own people?
The kind who lives high on the hog because the military has the total support of the dictator in chief and a threat to said dictator is a threat to their status.
Which is unlikely to be the average low ranking office and NCO...
You would be surprised. When the military receives any sort of special status it tends to filter down through the ranks in a way that breeds loyalty.
I never understood why after 40 year he never made it past Col.?
i think the harder the Liyian govt. cracks, the harder the people will push for freedom.
in the end, i think he goes.
I'm afraid Mr. Gaddafi (spelling) will end up being drug through the streets of Tripoli... he actions in the last few days have pretty much spelled his doom. There is no way he can keep a hold on Libya now.. IMHO... Just wondering who's next... Iran... Saudi Arabia??
In other news, bears defecate in woodland areas....
BBC wrote:
Colonel Gaddafi 'ordered Lockerbie bombing'
Libya's former justice minister has told a Swedish newspaper that Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.
Mustafa Abdel-Jalil told Expressen he had proof the Libyan leader was behind the bombing of Pan AM flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988.
Following the disclosure the Crown Office said it would "pursue such lines of inquiry that become available".
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed in 2001 for the attack.
However, the Libyan was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009 by the Scottish government after being diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Dumfries and Galloway Police are reportedly monitoring events in Libya in the hope of new leads in the case.
Protest resignation
Expressen quoted Mustafa Abdel-Jalil as telling their correspondent in Libya: "I have proof that Gaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie".
However, he did not describe the evidence.
Abdel-Jalil stepped down as justice minister in protest of the violence used during against anti-government demonstrations.
He told Expressen that Gaddafi gave the order to bomb the plane to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the attack.
He said: "To hide it, he [Gaddafi] did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland."
Expressen spokeswoman Alexandra Forslund said its reporter, Kassem Hamade, interviewed the ex-justice minister at "a local parliament in a large city in Libya".
However, the spokeswoman said she did not want to name the city because of security concerns.
Expressen taped the interview, which was conducted in Arabic and translated into Swedish, Ms Forslund said.
'Disturbing but believable'
Colonel Gaddafi accepted Libya's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the victims' families in 2003.
However, he has never admitted personally giving the order for the attack.
Scottish Conservative Deputy Leader, Murdo Fraser MSP said, given recent events, many would find the claim "disturbing but believable".
He added: "If true, it makes all the more questionable the role of the last Labour government's drive to do all it could to send al-Megrahi back to Tripoli."
Well, hopefully we'll see him hang soon. Small consolation, but still..
Quite shrewd on their part. They've never been fond of Gaddafi, for much the same reason they were never fond of Saddam, and this is an opportunity for them to influence a government that was quickly becoming a Western collaborator state. Of course, they've never had much a of a presence in Linya, because Gaddafi hated them as much as they hate him, but its certainly worth a shot for them.
Quite shrewd on their part. They've never been fond of Gaddafi, for much the same reason they were never fond of Saddam, and this is an opportunity for them to influence a government that was quickly becoming a Western collaborator state. Of course, they've never had much a of a presence in Linya, because Gaddafi hated them as much as they hate him, but its certainly worth a shot for them.
alarmingrick wrote:I never understood why after 40 year he never made it past Col.?
Brilliant.
I think it's probably because he dresses like an aging transvestite, and is so mad he makes Glen Beck look like an accountant.
We used to joke about this as well, I mean, why only a colonel? Its not a particularly high rank. If your giving them out to yourself, you might as well go the whole hog.
Idi Amin made himself a field marshall, he was smart!
Quite shrewd on their part. They've never been fond of Gaddafi, for much the same reason they were never fond of Saddam, and this is an opportunity for them to influence a government that was quickly becoming a Western collaborator state. Of course, they've never had much a of a presence in Linya, because Gaddafi hated them as much as they hate him, but its certainly worth a shot for them.
Al Qaeda also supports the overthrow of Iranian government because they are Shiite and thus reject their 1 true form of Islam. Does that mean we should support the Iranian government?
schadenfreude wrote:
Al Qaeda also supports the overthrow of Iranian government because they are Shiite and thus reject their 1 true form of Islam. Does that mean we should support the Iranian government?
Where did I imply that the United States should support the Iranian government?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:There are some rumors floating now that Khaddafy was just introduced to a dirt nap.
Even if that's true, its very likely that his kids have been running the show for some time.
Y'know were I a rebel I would NOT want this dude recruiting for me.
"We are trying to organize people who will sacrifice their lives to free Tripoli from the dictator," said Gatrani, who heads the military committee now in charge of the army in Benghazi, 600 miles east of the capital and the first major city to fall under opposition control. But, he cautioned, "Entering Tripoli is not easy. Anyone trying will be shot."
alarmingrick wrote:I never understood why after 40 year he never made it past Col.?
Brilliant.
I think it's probably because he dresses like an aging transvestite, and is so mad he makes Glen Beck look like an accountant.
We used to joke about this as well, I mean, why only a colonel? Its not a particularly high rank. If your giving them out to yourself, you might as well go the whole hog.
Idi Amin made himself a field marshall, he was smart!
I heard he gave him self the exam for General 5 times and still failed
Didn't Amin also declare himself Emperor of Scotland?
Quite shrewd on their part. They've never been fond of Gaddafi, for much the same reason they were never fond of Saddam, and this is an opportunity for them to influence a government that was quickly becoming a Western collaborator state. Of course, they've never had much a of a presence in Linya, because Gaddafi hated them as much as they hate him, but its certainly worth a shot for them.
Al Qaeda also supports the overthrow of Iranian government because they are Shiite and thus reject their 1 true form of Islam. Does that mean we should support the Iranian government?
Fafnir wrote:Translating from British to proper English is a difficult task, afterall.
More that you poor colonials have to deal with the savage influences of the Americans, as well as the... French sympathisers within your own ranks
I'd say the French are quite a step up from what I'm currently dealing with. This is the place where "Don't Stop Believen" is the fething anthem and sadly the peak of musical taste (yes, it's hard to believe it, but it only gets worse from Journey). 9 out of 10 radio stations play country, and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who's not a fine arts major who's ever heard of anything that was made across the pond (Seriously, I mention David Bowie for feth's sake, and not a single person in a crowd's heard of him. David fething Bowie!). Where cowboy boots are actually fashionable (I swear to you that I'm telling the truth) and cowboy hats are not seen as offensive. Where denim jackets won't have you openly mocked, and mullets only slightly so.
chromedog wrote:ALL petty little empires crumble and fall eventually.
So do the big ones.
Speaking of big ones, I'm turning my head south right about now...
I've got a book in my pile right now Bye Bye Miss American Empire talking about modern cession movements. Frankly I have a list of states we can live without...
chromedog wrote:
Eventually even powerless peasants will revolt and change things.
Actually, I can count on one hand the number of times that has happened in recorded history, and even then its arguable as to whether or not those instances were true peasant rebellions.
People that have lived hand to mouth for generations tend to be extremely conservative because getting something wrong doesn't mean finding a new job, or moving to a new city, it means dieing.
Fafnir wrote:Where cowboy boots are actually fashionable (I swear to you that I'm telling the truth) and cowboy hats are not seen as offensive. Where denim jackets won't have you openly mocked, and mullets only slightly so.
Hey, cowboy hats are AWESOME. I don't care if you mock country music, pointy cowboy boots, mullets, or denim jackets (I'll join you on the last one), don't mock the cowboy hats. Not only are they fashionable, they're also highly practical.
Try wearing one on a 48.8 degree C day (115-120 F for Americans), with a wet bandanna covering your head under the hat. It helps soooooo much.
Melissia wrote:Hey, cowboy hats are AWESOME. I don't care if you mock country music, pointy cowboy boots, mullets, or denim jackets (I'll join you on the last one), don't mock the cowboy hats.
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, they are apparently so tragically uncool that you have to cover them with the uncool "cowboy hat" so no one can see you are wearing one...
Functional > Cool. The bandanna absorbs sweat while the cowboy hat keeps sun out of your face.
Melissia wrote:Hey, cowboy hats are AWESOME. I don't care if you mock country music, pointy cowboy boots, mullets, or denim jackets (I'll join you on the last one), don't mock the cowboy hats.
Fafnir wrote:
9 out of 10 radio stations play country.
So why are you complaining?
It's better than all of the other crap on the radio.
It really wouldn't be so bad if the CD player in my car didn't freeze when it gets cold out. It really crushes your soul when you put in that Smiths CD, only to be greeted by some random country song. Or worse, yet, Ke$ha. Or if you're unlucky enough, both.
While I agree with you that country and Ke$ha are bad, I happen to find them superior to the emo moaning of The Smiths. Indeed, I would rather listen to Will Smith.
youbedead wrote:It appears that a US navy carrier and assault craft are moving towards Libya
gak just got real
I say we send in the SEALs. End this good and proper. After that, bomb some mercs, then give everyone an American flag and fly off into the sunset. Democracy strikes again.
The best reason to take over a country is for all the sex it brings with it. I figure blokes who are good looking enough to get laid without taking over a country don't have any reason to bother.
sebster wrote:
The best reason to take over a country is for all the sex it brings with it. I figure blokes who are good looking enough to get laid without taking over a country don't have any reason to bother.
youbedead wrote:It appears that a US navy carrier and assault craft are moving towards Libya
gak just got real
That sort of thing has already been happening. British warships have been in the area for a few days now, and the SAS/SBS have been into to Libya to extract civilians. Has that not been reported over there?
Albatross wrote:That sort of thing has already been happening. British warships have been in the area for a few days now, and the SAS/SBS have been into to Libya to extract civilians. Has that not been reported over there?
It isn't nearly TEAM AMURIKUH!!!1111pi enough to be reported on in America
youbedead wrote:It appears that a US navy carrier and assault craft are moving towards Libya
gak just got real
I say we send in the SEALs. End this good and proper. After that, bomb some mercs, then give everyone an American flag and fly off into the sunset. Democracy strikes again.
Then what?
No. No more nation building. We have about ten more countries that may go through some of this in the next year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
youbedead wrote:It appears that a US navy carrier and assault craft are moving towards Libya
gak just got real
That sort of thing has already been happening. British warships have been in the area for a few days now, and the SAS/SBS have been into to Libya to extract civilians. Has that not been reported over there?
only slightly. We're busy watching the Republicans make fun of Obama for sending a ferry and Democrats defend it like it means anything.
I went from Scotland to Northern Ireland by ferry and it took forever, just hours. Bear in mind, you can SEE Northern Ireland from parts of Scotland! Wouldn't fancy fleeing to safety in one of them - especially if it's full of Celtic fans.
I assume they come 'as standard' on ferries. They were certainly well-represented on mine...
I went from Scotland to Northern Ireland by ferry and it took forever, just hours. Bear in mind, you can SEE Northern Ireland from parts of Scotland! Wouldn't fancy fleeing to safety in one of them - especially if it's full of Celtic fans.
I assume they come 'as standard' on ferries. They were certainly well-represented on mine...
Terms and conditions on the insurance policy, a few hundred drowning Celtic fans mitigates other losses if a ferry sinks.
I went from Scotland to Northern Ireland by ferry and it took forever, just hours. Bear in mind, you can SEE Northern Ireland from parts of Scotland! Wouldn't fancy fleeing to safety in one of them - especially if it's full of Celtic fans.
I assume they come 'as standard' on ferries. They were certainly well-represented on mine...
Evidently it did indeed take something like 2.5 days. China sends a warship, Britain sends ships and its uber SAS, even the Germans send in special forces (whats that guys in lederhosen hurling beer mugs?), we're reduced to a ferry. Its pretty comical.
Given the situation I don't really think that the appearance of the Marines arriving in full pomp and force would have done much to calm or even maintain the situation at the level it was at. Seeing as everyone's 2nd favourite Colonel -- his fried chicken is distinctly 2nd best here, no argument -- was already raving about invading foreign forces, Great satan etc etc yadda yadda -- as per usual -- one would suggest that in fact the appearance in any significant numbers of USA military forces would not go down well.
And would also, of course, play endlessly on all those other oh-so-friendly countries around that region.
Sometimes the softly softly approach is much better IMO.
reds8n wrote:
Sometimes the softly softly approach is much better IMO.
Let us also not forget that Gaddafi is basically fighting for his life. No one will take him in, and one can bet that the next government will put his head on a pike.
You can put all the soldiers on the ground that you want, but this man isn't going quietly.
Frazzled wrote:Evidently it did indeed take something like 2.5 days. China sends a warship, Britain sends ships and its uber SAS, even the Germans send in special forces (whats that guys in lederhosen hurling beer mugs?), we're reduced to a ferry. Its pretty comical.
Frazzled wrote:Evidently it did indeed take something like 2.5 days. China sends a warship, Britain sends ships and its uber SAS, even the Germans send in special forces (whats that guys in lederhosen hurling beer mugs?), we're reduced to a ferry. Its pretty comical.
Frazzled wrote:Evidently it did indeed take something like 2.5 days. China sends a warship, Britain sends ships and its uber SAS, even the Germans send in special forces (whats that guys in lederhosen hurling beer mugs?), we're reduced to a ferry. Its pretty comical.
Sure it does. Landing a military vessel in Libya would be very stupid if you wanted to avoid direct involvement.
Either way, the 6th fleet is stationed in Italy. We've had a default presence in proximity to the conflict since it began.
I was commenting on the "pretty comical" part of Frazzled's post.
Also, just because the 6th fleet is stationed in Italy doesn't mean we have a huge presence there. The 6th fleet sails as far as South Africa. According to this, the US only has 2 warships in the Mediterranean (not that two warships is insignificant). Not sure if the Mount Whitney (command ship) is counted in that.
biccat wrote:
Also, just because the 6th fleet is stationed in Italy doesn't mean we have a huge presence there. The 6th fleet sails as far as South Africa. According to this, the US only has 2 warships in the Mediterranean (not that two warships is insignificant). Not sure if the Mount Whitney (command ship) is counted in that.
We don't have to have a huge presence in order to have a default one.
Either way, Reuters claims 3 ships in the Med as of today, which seems to indicate that the Whitney wasn't included in the Fox count.
Actually, I thought we had the Enterprise moving through the Suez, and was ready to launch fighters at any moment? Plus, your right, 6th fleet. Also, Alquade (The terrorists) are also backing the rebels, so US interest in a NEW terrorist controlled nation would have spiked.
biccat wrote:
Also, just because the 6th fleet is stationed in Italy doesn't mean we have a huge presence there. The 6th fleet sails as far as South Africa. According to this, the US only has 2 warships in the Mediterranean (not that two warships is insignificant). Not sure if the Mount Whitney (command ship) is counted in that.
We don't have to have a huge presence in order to have a default one.
Either way, Reuters claims 3 ships in the Med as of today, which seems to indicate that the Whitney wasn't included in the Fox count.
That still seems awfully low, though.
It should be noted that one of those is a U.S. super-carrier, short of nuclear weapons few things have a greater impactband influence on a regoin
Col Gaddafi said he was "surprised" that his name had been mentioned abroad since he had handed over power "to the people" in 1977, eight years after taking power and there were no positions he could resign from.
youbedead wrote:
It should be noted that one of those is a U.S. super-carrier, short of nuclear weapons few things have a greater impactband influence on a regoin
The Enterprise is actually in the Red Sea. If it were in the Med there would be more than 3 ships there, as carriers never sail alone.
youbedead wrote:
It should be noted that one of those is a U.S. super-carrier, short of nuclear weapons few things have a greater impactband influence on a regoin
The Enterprise is actually in the Red Sea. If it were in the Med there would be more than 3 ships there, as carriers never sail alone.
Right, but it is within striking distance of Libya (well, her fighters are). And once she gets through the Suez, there will be at least 6 more ships added to the list.
youbedead wrote:
It should be noted that one of those is a U.S. super-carrier, short of nuclear weapons few things have a greater impactband influence on a regoin
The Enterprise is actually in the Red Sea. If it were in the Med there would be more than 3 ships there, as carriers never sail alone.
On a side note, isn't it time for the Big E to huled of to the breakers yard. I meen she is what, 50+ years old now? And as far as I know she is the only one of her class. It will be a sad day when they use her as a floting target :(
The second biggist projection of power the US has is the grandaddy of the cold war, the big belly B-52. Just send 6 of them in flying in high altatued bombing formation (with F-22s as escorts) and watch what happens
Apparently the Libyan Army is split in half, and quite a few of them are on the rebels side. Alot of the Libyan officials who have defected to the protestors are asking the West for a no-fly zone. Apparently China and Russia opposed the move for a no fly zone...
BUt yeah, it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. It seems as if the protestors are advancing into Tripoli, and Gadaffi has lost most of his grip on reality.
Ribon Fox wrote:On a side note, isn't it time for the Big E to huled of to the breakers yard. I meen she is what, 50+ years old now? And as far as I know she is the only one of her class. It will be a sad day when they use her as a floting target :(
IIRC she's scheduled to be decomissioned around 2015-2016, once the new "Gerald Ford" class of ships are ready for service. She's also the only they ever built of the Enterprise class. The Nimitz class proved to be better cost-efficient.
She may be old, but she's no Constitution. That one served in the war of 1812.
