Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Actually, we rented a ferry.

This does not make the situation any better.

biccat wrote:

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.

Actually, we rented a ferry.

This does not make the situation any better.

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.

Yeah, I must say, the appearance in Libya of tons of US soldiers would not play well at all with the populace...

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I must say, the appearance in Libya of tons of US soldiers would not play well at all with the populace...

Agreed. unless there is a danger to our people and they are there to get them out, then no US troops there.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I must say, the appearance in Libya of tons of US soldiers would not play well at all with the populace...

Agreed. unless there is a danger to our people and they are there to get them out, then no US troops there.

Well, wouldn't that be the reason for sending troops in anyway?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:

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.

Actually, we rented a ferry.

This does not make the situation any better.

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.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I must say, the appearance in Libya of tons of US soldiers would not play well at all with the populace...

Agreed. unless there is a danger to our people and they are there to get them out, then no US troops there.

Well, wouldn't that be the reason for sending troops in anyway?

Evidently not in the last few decades.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Terms and conditions on the insurance policy, a few hundred drowning Celtic fans mitigates other losses if a ferry sinks.

Aren't they used as balast?

They move about on deck at random so Mr Physics says no.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I must say, the appearance in Libya of tons of US soldiers would not play well at all with the populace...

Agreed. unless there is a danger to our people and they are there to get them out, then no US troops there.

Well, wouldn't that be the reason for sending troops in anyway?

Evidently not in the last few decades.

But what about all the nukes Saddam had?

Gibbsey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I must say, the appearance in Libya of tons of US soldiers would not play well at all with the populace...

Agreed. unless there is a danger to our people and they are there to get them out, then no US troops there.

Well, wouldn't that be the reason for sending troops in anyway?

Evidently not in the last few decades.

But what about all the nukes Saddam had?

And why did those Vietnamese boats attack our destroyer?

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.

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.

dogma wrote:

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/gaddafi-i-knew-kate-adie

.. well... yeah..err...

and in breaking news...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12618367

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.

... does "life" count as a position ?

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/03/libya.conflict/index.html?hpt=T1

More air attacks on civilians by government bombers.

One in particular caught on video by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/02/wedeman.libya.battle.for.brega.cnn

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.