jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (73 posts)

French, British and Americans Bomb Libya

  1. 0
    ryankettposted 5 years ago

    I was recently involved in a thread about this, I was personally hoping for no-US involvement, but it looks as if it was primarily the French and the British anyway.

    British Tornado jets and a British navy submarine, as well as US and UK vessels, took out runways and aircraft facilities, whilst 20 French fighter jets took out a lot of Gadaffi tanks and armoured vehicles.

    This is an unusually positive piece of military action, as its clear and sole intention is to restrict Gadaffi's ability to bomb his own people and limit his capabilities when it comes to reclaiming the capital city and a few other major settlements.

    Not sure if they have finished, but this was 100% neccessary, because Gadaffi would have no qualms at dropping missiles onto the heads of his own people if he needed to.

    I am glad that American involvement was limited. The agreement between the French, British and Americans, is that NO OCCUPATION of Libya would be pursued at any stage, only strategic strikes which would weaken Gadaffi against the rebel fighters.

    Gadaffis troops are already demoralised, they won't be happy about this, we will probably see more joining the revolution.

    1. Andrew0208 profile image60
      Andrew0208posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good news for Africa generally...Dictatorship is truly ending in Africa. This awesome change is thick in the air right now.

      1. onlinearticlespk profile image60
        onlinearticlespkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is not the end of Dictatorship, it is the start of American Occupation for Oil.

      2. zduckman profile image61
        zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not good news...it is just us and the British seizing more energy resources

    2. 0
      Kindblinkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This Step was okay and we people of Africa are very happy about it, but Gaddaffi force and supporters claims that during this air strike civilian were killed. Is this really true or they are just fabricating it ?

  2. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Gadaffi would have no qualms at dropping missiles onto the heads of his own people if he needed to." Haven't heard any hint in the news of that. Have heard the US dropped over a hundred Tomahawk missiles onto the heads of not their own people.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And you think a dictator like Gadaffi would have any qualms with dropping bombs on those he is trying to control? hmm

    2. 0
      ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You clearly don't know what you are talking about then, seeing as Gadaffi has been killing his own people for the past 6 weeks. The rebels have supported the strategic (key word that) bombing of gaddafi facilities.

      Gadaffi is still bombing his own people as we speak, even after the air and sea assaults, if he is willing to bomb and shoot them from the ground then he would be willing to bomb them from the air.

      Sounds like you need to get your head out of your backside, because you are effectively saying that Gaddafi wouldn't do what he is already doing hmm

      "Haven't heard any hint in the news of that."

      That would be heavily dependant on what 'news' you are listening to, feel free to peruse the hundreds of thousands of online articles which cover the events in Libya pretty comprehensively, as well as the YouTube footage from sources such as AP and BBC.

      1. Gingerrevolution profile image60
        Gingerrevolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        here here. I have been following closely and have to agree that it seems to be the first positive military action in a long time. i appreciate America stepping back and think that politically speaking, Obama has made the right decision in distancing himself from this.

        I would also like to point out to others on this thread who seem to think  that this is a western driven war for oil - this has been going on for the better part of a month. Gadaffi has been bombing and killing his own people - those he is supposed to protect as a Government body. If this was a war over oil why was it driven by the Arab countries? Why did the UN only gt involved after the Arab countries decided to act?

        I am a pacivist, I took to the streets to protest the war on Iraq along with 3 million other Brits. Has the world has gotten into such a state that a simple act of kindness towards a country who have hundreds of their nationals living in our own is regarded with such bitterness? That is very disheartening indeed.

    3. onlinearticlespk profile image60
      onlinearticlespkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      IT is the PArt of Amerian Great Game in the region to safeguard Israelis interest.

      1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
        Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So the Jews are behind it all? Yeah, sure they are.

        Maybe you should call it the "Blintz-kreig."

        1. Greek One profile image80
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          darn Jews are behind EVERYTHING!!!

          Someone should go talk to them.... causing all this upheaval and getting rid of all these dictators!!

          1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
            Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I just can't figure out how they managed to drop drugs into the Lybian's coffee so they'd all revolt. We can't just passover that.

            1. Greek One profile image80
              Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I bet he is a Jew too!

              They are all so crafty!!!.. pretending to by Arab dictators!

      2. 0
        ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Or they could be protecting the Libyan citizens from Gaddafi bombs? Your point is entirely mute, seeing as this assault was FRENCH led, and the French have condemned Israel and have strong relations with Iran.

        1. Greek One profile image80
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          the French are Jews too!!!

      3. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with this.

      4. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Israel sent mercenaries in there. We gave them immunity from prosecution.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbvz2mTUDWA

      5. zduckman profile image61
        zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is time we let Israel stand on its own feet or fall. They are our boys in the hood...helping us secure energy resources throughout the middle east. When we switch to renewable energy we will not have to be bound to them. Why weren't the Jews given East Germany...wouldn't that have made more sense..... just saying
        we are supporting an oppressive regime that is guilty of crimes against humanity

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I'm hopeful the US will stick to its limited involvement stance.
    I would hate for this to become Iraq revisited, where the goal is to take out Khaddafy (even though he deserves to be taken out, that is not our job).

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The best people to lead this are the French, they have the most respect in Northern Africa.

      If they do ever enter on the ground, then I sincerely hope that US troops do not, because the result will just be a new hotbed of islamic extremism.

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Former colonies tend to hate their former colonizers, not revere them.

        Maybe the French are respected among the elite, but this is a populist uprising.

        I think this is a bad idea overall. Americans are now well-known for intervening unnecessarily, and the French and British are loathed in Africa for their colonialist past.

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I am inclined to agree, although I hope that getting the support of the Arab League might just be enough to deflect such criticism.

          I know that the Greek PM, Papandreou, is frantically trying to organise a diplomatic solution. He has genuine influence with Gadaffi, so we can only hope that this provides another useful angle. smile

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Arab League is an organization headed by people like Ghaddafi.

            I wish Papandreou well, but I tend to think the Greeks overstate their international influence...

            1. 0
              ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The Arab League is very much split on this issue, but only one country has formally supported the strikes, Qatar.

              1. livelonger profile image88
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By "countries" you mean the leaders that are being tossed out, protested against, and spat on currently in the Arab world, right?

                I don't imagine they're holding referenda on whether to support US-UK-FR military strikes in these countries.

                1. 0
                  ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, the leaders.

                2. 0
                  ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  When was the last time that you saw a referendum in the US? We don't get them in the UK.

                  The Irish had one and the EU wanted to ignore it, to the 'dismay' of a British government who never holds them for its own people.

                  You vote in a government, and you give them license to be dictators for four years, we don't have democracy either.

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I was speaking figuratively. A government that doesn't do what its populace likes gets voted out. In a dictatorship, there is no such check.

            2. Sufidreamer profile image81
              Sufidreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Undoubtedly (the protests elsewhere show that!), but I think that going it alone without the support of any Arab nations at all would really open up the accusations of imperialism. I suspect that the Arab League support is as much about deflecting the protests of their own people as trying to do the right thing!

              Even then, it might not be enough - Gadaffi is a master of propaganda, and he will use every image of civilians killed during the strikes to support his view.

              Sadly, it appears to be one of those situations where there is no right answer, only the least harmful. It is all a little too close for comfort here - some of the stories from the thousands of refugees landing in Greece have been heartbreaking. sad

              I guess that I am in a situation where my heart and head are in conflict - my head says no, my heart says yes.

              EDIT: Papandreou does have influence in this particular situation - Gadaffi studied at the Athens Military Academy, and he became a personal friend of Papandreou's father, former PM Kostas smile

              1. 0
                ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                He also owns a £10 million house in London, and he donates to 3 British universities, including the one that his son attended, but that doesn't mean that he will listen to us! The man is a madman, clinging on to power that he would rather die for than lose, nobody will get through to a madman.

                1. Sufidreamer profile image81
                  Sufidreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No argument here, but it is still important to keep diplomatic channels open - even if there is only a tiny chance that Gadaffi will agree to leave peacefully, then it is a hope worth pursuing.

                  Completely cornering a mad dog leaves them with no choice but to attack!

          2. 0
            ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The wisest thing that Gaddafi could do is find a country willing to give him and his closest henchmen asylum and a place to store what is left of his fortune, because he will shortly find a lack of places to run to. He should cut his losses and find a new home in a country which promises not to hand him over to the UN or whoever for war crimes charges. Not that I want to see him live out his days in luxury with his multi-billion fortune.

        2. 0
          ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What do you think is a bad idea specifically? The occupation of Libya or the air strikes yesterday?

          Because I am 100% against any international occupation of Libya, or any other country. But I am supportive of the limiting of the arsenal available to a dictator who for the past couple of months has shown his willingness to slaughter civilians.

          They, in my eyes at least, are two entirely different things. An occupation would, for me, be a signal that the west wants to heavily influence the direction of the country post-Gaddafi.

          If this is a purely strategic measure to weaken Gaddafi, a dictator, then I am supportive of that.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's not how things are perceived on the ground.

            Even airstrikes will eventually be perceived as unnecessary intervention by 3 world powers that have a bad reputation of meddling where they're not wanted (and who have had extensive interests in North Africa for centuries, in the case of France and Britain).

            If the world powers didn't intervene when several hundred thousand people were butchered in Darfur, they shouldn't start intervening now.

            1. 0
              ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, because the Chinese effectively allied with the Sudanese government. In fact, it supplied them with weapons.

              A war with China is not what any country needs, as much as India would like to see it happen; particularly as they now have strong relations with Russia.

              1. livelonger profile image88
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, that's probably true. From what I understand, the Canadians and Europeans sold their concessions to China, India and Malaysia, and they made clear they'd make any sort of intervention expensive and difficult.

      2. Gingerrevolution profile image60
        Gingerrevolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agree again that the French are best to drive this. As a point of interest Obama has promised that the American's will not get involved in a ground assault. He s a very shrewd politician - if it all does go badly America does not need to be the target of further extremist action.

    2. onlinearticlespk profile image60
      onlinearticlespkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Intererence is interference,either it is little or more.IT is against the internatiional norms.

  4. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "You clearly don't know what you are talking about then, seeing as Gadaffi has been killing his own people for the past 6 weeks." Funny I thought it was the rebellion killing Gadaffi supporters. Which was and is ok. Only when it is the other way round seems to me is killing a problem. At any rate do you know what a civil war is?

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The difference between the American Civil War and the Libyan "civil war" being that one was a war between two parties possessing the same simple military capabilities and the other is the man on the street armed with whatever they can get hold of versus a 21st century military with tanks, armoured vehicles, advanced missiles and fighter jets.

      When I protest in Trafalger Square, as I have on numerous occassions, I can perhaps expect a truncheon around my head or a run in with a police horse. At worse, if it turns violent, I could expect crowd dispersal techniques such as a water cannon. What I would not expect is tanks being run into the crowds and advanced missiles being fired at me from three miles away.

      Either he will massacre his people using his fighter jets and tanks or the international community limit his capability to do so by blowing up those tanks and fighter jets. I know which one I support, you are entitled to support the opposite, but a majority will disagree with you.

      Its not just rebel fighters that they have been shooting at either, it is also children, women and elderly, shooting at anybody who dares be present when they seek to claim back a town.

      If the day ever comes that America has a civil war, and one party is armed with AK47s and pitchforks, whilst the other is armed with fighter jets, stealth planes and tanks, which they were using to bomb San Francisco, you would probably be grateful if the international community united in order to stop the massacre.

  5. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "you are entitled to support the opposite,". I really don't care. I see it as an oil grab. Demonize Gadaffi, overthrow him, install an oil oligarchy and walla all that oil. So what do you protest in Trafalger Square?

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In the UK it is seen as acceptable to protest, and as such this happens quite frequently. I don't need to tell you what I have protested, the first big one was a protest against the war in Iraq as it happens. There were around 1 million turn up in London for that one, not that it did any good.

      Recently there were protests, well riots really, about rising university tuition fees. I wish that I could have gone to that one, but I was otherwise engaged. In the US a protest tends to attract a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand, because you are all too busy being keyboard warriors, or reading a bible, or eating a triple cheeseburger. You just take whatever the government wants to shove up your backside, and then moan about it in retrospect on a computer; Gates had that one sorted didn't he.

      I am lucky to live in the UK, where a protest doesn't get greeted with government bullets. As the protest against Obama's arrival in Brazil was yesterday, greeted with bullets, something which Obama seems willing to condone through silence. Funny ain't it? How he can be all smiles in front of a photographer, whilst visiting the president of a country who the night before was fighting with people protesting against his arrival?

      Americans like you don't have a clue, because you don't care.

  6. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Americans like you don't have a clue, because you don't care." Americans like me would be what a nationalist political identity. In such a case I would not be an American. My identity transcends the planet actually. Me thinking you need to transcend this stereotypical typecasting.
    Really not applicable in the individual case. However it is easy.

  7. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "The Arab League is an organization headed by people like Ghaddafi." Yea that one is a joke. The Arab League is the oil oligarchies all pretty much kept in power with US military equipment. Seems to me if the US wants Gaddafi gone the Arab League wants Gadaffi gone.

  8. Ritsos profile image65
    Ritsosposted 5 years ago

    From the BBC

    "The BBC's Jonathan Head reports from Cairo that the Arab League's apparent second thoughts about supporting a no-fly zone look like a worrying crack in the coalition. Public opinion in Egypt, while very sympathetic to the Libyan opposition, is suspicious of Western involvement, so without the Arab League's endorsement the no-fly zone will lose its legitimacy in this region, he adds."

    So not so much support from the Arab league ... and my money's on more Western involvement (poss even occupation) as time goes on .. after all, Libya is rich in Oil

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why don't the members of the Arab league take it upon themselves to intervene if they are so concerened with Western Involvement? Probably because they support the non-democratic model, as emphasised by Saudi military vehicles entering Bahrain.

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Bingo!

      2. Paraglider profile image88
        Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. And add to that the blame culture that pervades all of Arabia. If you first support the no-fly zone, then oppose the means to establish it, you are hedging your bets. That's the mentality in this part of the world. Point the finger but take no responsibility. The GCC decision to send Saudi troops and UAE police into Bahrain was crass. But more than crass, it was evidence of how out of touch with the real world these 'rulers' have become. Their day is over and whether they leave peacefully or in a river of blood, leave they will.

  9. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    BP

    40%-US

    40%-Britain

    20%-France

  10. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 5 years ago

    Come on now, LiveLonger - we are all starting to agree. You know that isn't allowed in the HP political forums tongue

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      Yes, I suppose we can all start calling each other fascists and socialists, Obama-lovers and Obama-haters. wink

      1. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Give it time - we are only on page two...

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Why the fu** are we invading a country to help people WHO DON'T WANT US THERE when a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger problem is happening in Japan - a country that DOES like us and DOES want us there?

    PLEASE explain this to me. PLEASE. OH - and in explaining it to me, please be sure to explain why we are launching a war without a Declaration of War from Congress.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Why the fu** are we invading a country to help people WHO DON'T WANT US THERE"

      "PLEASE explain this to me. PLEASE."

      I'll try to explain it.''Uhhhh, we didn't invade Libya.

      Hope that helps.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really?

        That puts my mind to ease.

        ... but why does every single media outlet keep referring to some sort of "US - led coalition" "Bombing" things in Libya? One is talking about "US Tomahawk Cruise Missles" hitting and blowing things up.

        Gee! I must've misunderstood something.

        Here, let's do a google.news search of "Us Libya"

        http://www.google.com/search?q=US+libya … a5ed888593

        ... let's see... Bombing... Attacking... Blowing up...

        ... hmm...

        Still not seeing "declaration of war from congress" anywhere...

        http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2 … -to-attack

        http://abcnews.go.com/International/lib … d=13174246

        I dunno, it looks like warfare! Our men are entering the land and airspace of a foreign country without a declaration of war from our Sovereign government, and they are attacking that country.

        ... Anyway, Jim, You can keep thinking it's not an invasion, and that it's legal. I don't even care at this point. Just remember that it's your tax dollars at work.

        1. 0
          ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Our men are entering the land and airspace of a foreign country without a declaration of war from our Sovereign government"

          No US, UK or French troops have stepped foot on land. They having fired missiles from the sea or air, at current there is no occupation.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you can call "stepping foot on land" an invasion, but can't call "flying a fighter jet and bombing the sh!t out of things"...

            ... then ... Yeah, I dunno. Good luck with that.

            Our executive branch declared war.

            1. zduckman profile image61
              zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree ... war does not mecesitate having a soldier on the ground...look at Pakistan ...we do all our fighting there with drones...but civilians are still dying

      2. zduckman profile image61
        zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I believe the reason is called OIL. It is the same old song and dance...invade a country to tap into its resources and brand it a "humanitarian" mission. There is nothing humanitarian about war. Did we interfere with the mass killings in Rawanda....no ...why...no oil. We are in Afghanistan for natural gas, and Iraq for oil. we don't give a sh&% about Iran having nuclear power...they have the 4th largest oil reserve in the world....and WE WANT IT.
        It is really simple ...corporate greed run rampant backed by our governmental puppets.

    2. DTR0005 profile image85
      DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan, we agree on this issue. We don't need any more military exploits in any more countries.

      1. zduckman profile image61
        zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If we are trying to "balance the budget" and cut costs.....our out of control military spending should be the first cost to be reduced!!!

  12. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    Of course, you forget that presidents have used this authority since Thomas Jefferson used military force against the same territory (the Barbary Pirates -circa 1800).

    It does point up something I said before about the AMBIGUITY of the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war, but the president is commander of the armed forces.  Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit the president from taking military action WITHOUT a Declaration of War.

  13. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit the president from taking military action WITHOUT a Declaration of War." The real power of the congress is in the purse. They do not have fund the wars the president starts. Has their been a single war, and estimates go as high as 200 wars by the US since its inception,that the congress has refused to fund? Maybe the Iran Contra war, don't remember.

    1. zduckman profile image61
      zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Iran Contra war was not an official war it was a black ops maneuver. Smuggling plane loads of cocaine into the U.S. that the CIA was somehow able to sell in order to use the money to purchase weapons. This also gave birth to crack cocaine.

  14. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    i hope they bomb the crap out of every military tool Gadaffi has at his disposal, until he is so weak that someone brave enough will put a bullet in his thread (preferably a Libyan)

    1. zduckman profile image61
      zduckmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      damn

  15. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War"

    'nuff said.

  16. zduckman profile image61
    zduckmanposted 5 years ago

    Do you think we would be involved at all if Libya did not have the largest known oil reserves in Africa???

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      AmerIsrael!
      Send forces in there to attack the anti-gvt crowd...make it look like Gadhafi's doing it, gives them am excuse to remove him."That brute!"
      Just like with Iraq, "Find something...anything to give me an excuse to get him out."
      They get Iraq, trying for Afghanistan, now Libya.

      Meanwhile, we give them immunity for sending those mercenaries in there, and they charge Gadhafi for it to boot!!!
      Kosher Nostra.

  17. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    In all the media and political lies and double speak it should not be forgotten that Gaddafi threw us, the Brits and the French, out of Libya which they were pretty much running as a private minerals and oil source - and doing nothing for the 'people'.  Funny how all of a sudden those same previously neglected 'people' are so important.

    What exactly is the difference between what we call the 'terrorism' that blows up buildings and government installations - and the kind of terror that comes with blowing up buildings and government installations from fighter aircraft and missiles ?     What is the difference between an Muslim Fatwah that encourages 'somebody' to put a  bullet in the head of a person they disagree with - and suggesting that it would be a good idea for 'somebody' to put a bullet in the head of Gaddafi ?

    What will the reaction be of the rich countries be when their millions of poor, homeless and oppressed rise up because they cannot afford even McDonalds any more - and some outside country decides to bomb the crap out of the government resources and infrastructure.

  18. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Arab League chief Amr Moussa on Sunday condemned the "bombardment of civilians" and called for an emergency meeting of the group of 22 states to discuss Libya. He requested a report into the bombardment, which he said had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians. What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Egypt's state news agency quoted Moussa as saying.

    Edward Djerejian, a former US assistant secretary of state and former US ambassador to Syria, said it had been made very clear that a no-fly zone could not be established without taking military action against airfields and anti-aircraft installations. "A no-fly zone is not just a computer model game," he told Al Jazeera. "It means military action and that was clear to all parties, including the Arab League."

    Gates warned us too!! It's no joke, people will die. That is why it is war.
    Collateral Damage...the most ignored part of any war.

 
working