Thread: No Fly Zone for Libya?

Originally Posted by rj1

Did I miss where they got recognized as such? And who are we recognizing, any names for these people?

At this point no one recognizes them, which is precisely why they want to take steps to be recognized.

In practice at this point they're little different than Jefferson Davis from 1861-65 (nobody ever recognized him and his country either) or Eamon de Valera before Britain recognized Irish independence. If they think the rest of the world are going to carry out the coup for them, they're incredibly mistaken because that is a terrible precedent.

It's not a coup, it's a rebellion, or possibly a revolution. Less we forget, there were some very helpful Frenchmen present at our own little rebellion some years ago.

Originally Posted by rj1

If I was Gaddafi I'd call the bluff. What else does he have to lose? I won't believe the world will act til it actually does so. No troops on the ground as the Libyan opposition wants means their capabilities to overthrow Gaddafi are curtailed although I understand their reasoning as I stated in earlier posts. And if the Russians veto UN-sanctioned military action, then a lot of countries are going to have eat crow and go against their statements from the past decade if they still want to provide the opposition military help.

BBC ticker (all times British):



So they want no troops on the ground, but still want the no-fly zone.

*Gadaffi took rule by military coup, he was never elected and nobody has had a say in that country for the last three decades and more.

Russia has opposed other interventions as well it didnt mean they didnt happen though. And it surely didnt stop them from invading Georgia now did it?

For all we know the US could also be one of the countries flying out evacs to their home nations so they could already be involved.

Standing by and watching these people suffer is not the right thing to do although it maybe the politically popular thing to do which would be nothing new at all.

In the least offer them what they can medical supply, water and food wise.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

nobody has had a say in that country for the last three decades and more.

Four decades.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

he was never elected

And technically he stepped down 32 years ago.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Russia has opposed other interventions as well it didnt mean they didnt happen though. And it surely didnt stop them from invading Georgia now did it?

Offtopic, but there was no intervention in Georgia. There was a defensive response to an act of aggression that was fully covered by Article 53 of the UN charter. "Interventions", in particular on behalf of non-state agents, are not covered by this - that's why they're supposed to be signed off by UNSC.

Originally Posted by kato

Four decades.


And technically he stepped down 32 years ago.


Offtopic, but there was no intervention in Georgia. There was a defensive response to an act of aggression that was fully covered by Article 53 of the UN charter. "Interventions", in particular on behalf of non-state agents, are not covered by this - that's why they're supposed to be signed off by UNSC.

Kato,
In a nutshell, for the cost of fuel alone being burnt by all of these countries respective navy ships, they can also render assistance or aid whichever it may be but perform a service for making that trip instead of it being as a sightseeing tour. Who knows they may even feel better afterwards knowing they did something to help those people.

Georgia we can discuss elsewhere.

The Egyptians that watch the Suez are obviously dumb...I would be charging toll by the ton for all of these Navy ships to be in the Med.

Most of the ships were in the region anyway btw - some on training cruises, others moving from/to deployments. The only ships specifically rerouted so far are the US and UK ships.

As for tonnage charges for Suez, they should think quickly and do it before the Enterprise makes its way through
(actually, they already do charge by tonnage - no idea what the SCNT of a CVN is though)

Originally Posted by kato

Most of the ships were in the region anyway btw - some on training cruises, others moving from/to deployments. The only ships specifically rerouted so far are the US and UK ships.

As for tonnage charges for Suez, they should think quickly and do it before the Enterprise makes its way through
(actually, they already do charge by tonnage - no idea what the SCNT of a CVN is though)

With the case of Egypt right now more then likely they welcome the presence. One would also think that some kind of agreement is made for the passing of warships during these times.

Originally Posted by kato

As for tonnage charges for Suez, they should think quickly and do it before the Enterprise makes its way through
(actually, they already do charge by tonnage - no idea what the SCNT of a CVN is though)

Close to 100,000-t fully loaded; the USS GHWB grosses out at over 102,000 long tons.

People, a NFZ is an Act of War. The ONLY WAY to enact an NFZ is to attack the infrastructures that can launch aircrafts.

OOE Sir,
That would be true as well as ground installations that provide radar coverage, AA etc. As far as being an act of war if memory serves Obama can wage war for 90 days without Congress's consent. I may be a bit gratis with that time frame but I know he can for a short amount of time. It could even be as small as 30 days. And if memory serves this will not be the first time visiting Libya under Ghaddafi's rule although for the US in was Ronald Reagans time in the Oval Office.

IMO, I dont think that is their intentions, more or less aid but they will also enforce the UN mandates if directed by the UNSC as you no doubt already know.

Originally Posted by citanon

The hope would be that the regime would collapse once western war planes are over head and Gadhaffi's down fall looks like a fait-accompli. The downside would be that this may not work in which case some serious effort needs to be put into making the rebels a real army and then you would need to assist them with weapons, training and airstrikes.

What happens if yet another dictator emerges from this ?

If one group becomes too powerful this may become inevitable. The end goal is they will have a more equitable govt in the future.

Originally Posted by citanon

But consider the alternative:

1. Gadhaffi survives after massive blood shed and puts down the rebellion while the West does nothing.
2. Gadhaffi and rebels reach a messy stalemate. Al Qaeda and other extremists groups move in to offer aid while the West does nothing.

If this decison is takien it better well suceed otherwise Gadaffi is going to go for WMD's.

Originally Posted by citanon

What would the above mean for the war on terro, the nascent democratic revolutions in the region, and our future relations with Tunisia, Egypt and others? I would think either of the above would be a major strategic set-back for us on all those fronts. That, in turn would destabilize our economic and physical security.

Foreign intervention is unpredictable. Unless those on board are willing to go to the very end to see their aims fulfilled. It can't be half measures. However, I like the idea of humantarian aid, medical, food & water.

The biggest problem for the rebel advance right now is there is this big desert between Tripoli & Benghazi. They are overstretching their supply lines or unable to protect them to further advance.

So how can they rectify this situation ?

Only then can pressure on Tripoli be applied.

Originally Posted by Stitch

Close to 100,000-t fully loaded; the USS GHWB grosses out at over 102,000 long tons.

That's not SCNT though. SCNT is a tonnage-based civilian classification that the fees for Suez are based on.