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.

True, but they weren't in open rebellion at the time.

There's a huge difference between lending assistance and invading a country.

bs. You're not "lending assistance" if you're shooting at a country's aircraft. Well...I guess if by lending assistance you meant helping them get to the ground quickly I guess.

WSJ denoting stalemate starting. Be careful of backing the wrong horse.

A no-fly one has the support of the Conference of Islamic Nations, the majority of countries in the UN, and pretty much everyone bur Russia and China. Meh at backing the wrong horse-- we're backing people who want to overthrow a tyrant, and pretty much everyone agrees that it's a good idea. This is not comparable to Iraq which did not have such overwhelming support.

Melissia wrote:A no-fly one has the support of the Conference of Islamic Nations, the majority of countries in the UN, and pretty much everyone bur Russia and China. Meh at backing the wrong horse-- we're backing people who want to overthrow a tyrant, and pretty much everyone agrees that it's a good idea. This is not comparable to Iraq which did not have such overwhelming support.

bs. IF THEY SUPPORT IT LET THEM DO IT.

They don't need us. I don't see ANY of them doing anything. They are full of gak.

Russia and China have very good reason to not want a no fly zone i wouldnt want to have a US Aircraft carrier that close either

Bakerofish wrote:Russia and China have very good reason to not want a no fly zone i wouldnt want to have a US Aircraft carrier that close either

Bwah?

Either your geography is off or supercarriers have a much longer range than I thought.

I'm fairly certain that the US has closer bases to Russia and China than the Mediterranean.

I hadn't noticed any particular interest in launching attacks on Russia or China either, unless you think they are just paranoid awaiting the imminent U.S. Invasion of most of Asia that we have been so blatanty preparing for?

Nurglitch wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:So did occupying afghanistan and iraq. The US already has its hands full.

The UN should be intervening, not the US in another unilateral invasion.

This. Let the people of Libya determine their own future.

Agreed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I'm fairly certain that the US has closer bases to Russia and China than the Mediterranean.

yes god job seeing as we have some idiots here and on this thread your right

lol admittedly this is more tin-hat than anything but if ya take a look at it, getting an aircraft carrier in the mediterranean for an extended period of time gives a shorter and clearer run, and over friendlier airspace

so they get one in there, theres the other near Iraq and Iran, the one in S. Korea...

again tin-hat

dont hurt me

You don't know your geography very well.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. If the rest of the world is for this no fly zone except China and Russia, where are the Swedish Saabs and German Tornadoes screaming over Libya? I don't see any Mirages flying nor fighters with the Brazilian flag on it. No Saudi or Kuwaiti F-15s, no South African airships either.

So where are they?

Bakerofish wrote:lol admittedly this is more tin-hat than anything but if ya take a look at it, getting an aircraft carrier in the mediterranean for an extended period of time gives a shorter and clearer run, and over friendlier airspace

so they get one in there, theres the other near Iraq and Iran, the one in S. Korea...

again tin-hat

dont hurt me

The US has air force bases in Germany, Italy, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Japan, and South Korea, just to name a few.

Having an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean isn't going to drastically change the operational threat of the United States towards Russia or China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:German Tornadoes

Those Fokkers were flying Messerschmitts!

/punchline.

US Naval ships are in the Med alot of the time anyway... Have been for the last 60 years.

Same as there have been USSR/Russian ships in the Med too...

This thread seems to have a few people who know very little about history and current affairs.

As for the invasion of Iraq, many did welcome the US arrival, such as the scenes toppling the statue of Saddam. Indeed 101AB sector was virtually passified within a week or two and they were getting on great guns.

The problem was that the US government elected to disband the Iraq Army and various other insitutions, meaning they had to then keep US troops on the ground as an 'occupation' force and also deal with massive amounts of unemployed soldiers who feel into the insurgency.

They were happy you arrived... they just didnt want you to stay.

Oh and the utterly botched attempts at building an Iraq regime didnt help too much either.

Frazzled wrote:I noticed you didn't answer the question.

Don't be upset, you do that all the time.

aye consider me educated

Actually the main problem for a no-fly zone is indeed where to base the aircraft and who will provide the short range and long range aerial surveillance aircraft.

Alongside this you will also need satelitte intel providing locations of key AA installaltions, that will need to be taken out before hand, as in Bosnia. You will also want some on the ground intel, from either SF or trusted local sources to pick up hidden AA sites.

You will also need rescue and recovery operation units in the area along with QRF SF teams to help retrieve pilots from hostile forces.

But mainly... You need a base capable of handling a large amount of aircraft required to enforce the zone.

NATO is already doing short and long range as well as satalite surveilance.

Melissia wrote:NATO is already doing short and long range as well as satalite surveilance.

Its member states are.

Not NATO itself. Pulling all those resources into a complete and workable system is another matter. NATO dont always get it right when they try and pull various nations into one force.

Big P wrote:Actually the main problem for a no-fly zone is indeed where to base the aircraft and who will provide the short range and long range aerial surveillance aircraft.

Well, you can base them on carrier in the Med, or if Italy will go along with us, base them out of southern Italy/Malta.

I sincerely doubt that NATO will have any problems holding a no fly zone down...I refer you back to the Gulf of Sidra incidents in the 80s. Somehow I doubt the Libyans would have improved much.

The RAF has bases on Cyprus, too. They're close-ish.

Remember kids, US Carriers=4.5 acres of sovereign US territory ready to go where needed.

True, but they weren't in open rebellion at the time.

There's a huge difference between lending assistance and invading a country.

The Kurds wanted us there pretty badly

Remember kids, US Carriers=4.5 acres of sovereign US territory ready to go where needed.

Yeah at what cost? Tell you what the UN, EU whoever, we willl send our stuff out for you when you start footing the bills! That includes the butchers bill and all future medical bills! I'm so sick of the US doing all the heavy lifting and getting nothing but sh@# for it. The EU, UN and NATO have big mouths and no balls. The only country over there that does there share are the Brits.

Seriously, Europe has had peace since WW2 but what have the Europeans contributed to that? What price have they paid for that stability that is built upon the foundation of US protection? You know they charge us for the land our bases are on, they act like our military is criminal, but try to close a base and watch the protests. F'em

A no-fly one has the support of the Conference of Islamic Nations

Again great? Foot the bill, those planes are gonna use a lot of fuel, maybe they can talk OPEC into filling them for free. While they are at it do something about out $4 a gallon gas right now. The Us armed forces job is not to create stability in the world while our own people can't foot the bill for it.

Don't forget the political bills. Politically the US is bankrupt. Conference of Islamic nations, you want some help, you had better start talking about how the US is the friend on Islam. I want some political credit for the work the US armed forces put in. If I hear another story about civilian deaths! Really, like it happens on purpose! Sorry maybe if you could take care of your own sh@%, the US soldiers wouldn't be there accidentally killing some civilians now and then.

I can just see it now, we shoot down a Libyan helicopter, it crashes into a farmhouse or whatever mud and straw buildings these people live in. Headlines "US Airforce killls family in Libya, Conference of Islamic Nations condemns US no fly zone". This would of course be followed by riots and flag burnings throughout the Islamic countries. Quickly followed by France, Italy and Germany call the US warmongers and pulling out what little support they lent, leaving us there all alone AGAIN. The US tax payers foot the bill while we can't even pay out teachers, corporations turn huge profits. The US is then forced to pull out because of public opinion and Libya turns into a US hating fundamentalist state.

The world then points a finger at the US and says "Your fault!"

F'em. F'em all!

You do realize that we have carriers that regularly go on cruises in the mediterranean right? We have carriers there already thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the dozens of air bases we also have in the area, Qatar for example.

halonachos wrote:You do realize that we have carriers that regularly go on cruises in the mediterranean right? We have carriers there already thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the dozens of air bases we also have in the area, Qatar for example.

Yeah, so. Doesn't mean we should launch operations and increase the cost of them being there unless someone wants to foot that bill. I don't see the Ice Cream man giving kids treats for free just cause he's driving by anyway.

I don't think the tax payers are happy about the excursions we are on, much less pay for another. Can anyone give any reason why it would be in the US best interest to become active in this theater? Please don't respond with people are getting killed. People are getting killed everywhere. Helping them MAY be in thier best interests, not the US's.

Why should the US taxpayer foot the bill to give someone else liberty as ours are being stripped away at home?

I am currently in San Diego for a bit. I see so many homeless veterans, until we can afford to take care of them the way they deserve, I don't think we have the right to spend money on ANYONE else. Why are we giving financial and military aid to the world when the soldiers that this aid is based on are wandering homeless in droves?

As I recall, there was already an aircraft carrier dispatched to the Libyan coast, albeit one with insufficient resources to enact a no-fly zone. Of course, I only heard that second hand, so I don't know the truth of the matter.

Oil and the fact that he's sponsored terrorism before help.

halonachos wrote:Oil and the fact that he's sponsored terrorism before help.

Those are the exact same reasons we went into Iraq and that has been fabulous!. So you want to spend another 3 trillion dollars a year that we don't have. Good call!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:As I recall, there was already an aircraft carrier dispatched to the Libyan coast, albeit one with insufficient resources to enact a no-fly zone. Of course, I only heard that second hand, so I don't know the truth of the matter.

The Libyan air force is not scary, it could be done with one carrier. But why? Who pays for it? Will Libya, will UN, will Nato? If by some miracle they shoot a plane down, or one just crashes for some reason who pays for that $50 million dollar expense?

Actually we went into Iraq because of the fact that he had WMD's before.

If you actually do some research you will find that most of the oil fields owned by an outisde country in Iraq are owned by the Chinese who did jack squat.

So if oil really was the major reason we went into Iraq, why would we allow China to buy rights to most of the fields?

We are also proposing a no-fly zone, not a full scale invasion. Those are two completely different things, if you want to compare the concepts of the no-fly zone over Libya and the invasion of Iraq you may also want to compare eating an apple to burying a dead dog.

halonachos wrote:Actually we went into Iraq because of the fact that he had WMD's before.

Nah, that's probably not why. At the time there was a single confirmed proliferator, and one significantly more dangerous possible proliferator that would have been of much greater interest.

Two of the best explanations that I've heard stem from a sort of collective obsession with Iraq within the policy wonks in the administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.), or the belief that exporting democracy to the Middle East would cause a domino effect whereby the Middle East would democratize, and therefore become sympathetic to the US, or at least stable. Both causes point at a sort of collective delusion, which seems like a probable cause when more material forces are not illuminating.

halonachos wrote:
If you actually do some research you will find that most of the oil fields owned by an outisde country in Iraq are owned by the Chinese who did jack squat.

So if oil really was the major reason we went into Iraq, why would we allow China to buy rights to most of the fields?

Because we're not really interested in who possesses any given oil field, we're interested in the actual price of oil; meaning we have a compelling interest to see the commodity outside of state ownership.