http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

 

The UK' date=' the US and France have begun attacking Libya as enforcement of the UN-mandated no-fly zone gets under way.

 

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya. French planes flew reconnaissance missions and destroyed Libyan vehicles earlier on Saturday.

 

US media say the US has fired Cruise missiles on Libya from a warship.

 

Western planes bombed targets in the capital, Tripoli, said the AFP news agency, quoting witnesses and state TV. [/quote']

 

This happened (and is happening right now) after Gaddafi's troops ignored the ceasefire and launched an attack on Benghazi.

 

Who else didn't see this coming? I thought Gaddafi would honor the ceasefire. :(

Generic middle eastern war 32B has just begun.

Good. I just hope the US and other involved nations don't overstay their welcome again.

 

I thought Gaddafi would honor the ceasefire.

Really?

I didn't see him honouring the ceasefire at all.

 

It's a shrewd move by the UN - it allows them to help without looking overbearing. That said, we can't really know how it'll play out until the revolution has either been quashed or is successful.

Hardly a US war, more like what went on in Kosovo but with the UN mandate. I'm not even sure they'll "officially" put boots on the ground, if they do, it will either be special forces and/or a task force of various countries meant to route Gaddafi's forces.

 

 

I thought Gaddafi would honor the ceasefire.

Really?

 

Sarcasm.

 

Anyway...

 

"We will open up Libya's deserts and allow Africans to flood to Europe to blow themselves up as suicide bombers."

 

It'll be 9/11 times 1000!

The US is already ruined by the 2 wars they are fighting, if they fight that 3rd war, the USD will become even weaker than it already is.

It would have been irresponsible if we let the conflict in Libya continue so it was only a matter of time before someone stepped in to do the job. I'm interested in seeing which nation steps up if ground troops are needed.

It would have been irresponsible if we let the conflict in Libya continue so it was only a matter of time before someone stepped in to do the job. I'm interested in seeing which nation steps up if ground troops are needed.

 

Doubt Cameron will allow the UK troops into battle simply because the army couldn't cope with another war, it's too strecthed as it is currently. Plus the public backlash would further damage an already weak foundation of support.

Hopefully if we supply enough air support/weapons to the Rebel's they could lead their own country through a revolution without help on the ground.

I'm actually surprised it took this long for the UN to intervene, hopefully it will be resolved fairly quickly not least to get this mad man out of power and to stop him from murdering his own people but also because I don't think France, the UK or the USA can afford to go to full out war. It's probably quite unlikely any ground troops will be sent in though this being Gaddafi, who knows what he'll do :unsure:

...I'm interested in seeing which nation steps up if ground troops are needed.

 

 

Ground troops are not needed and will never be accepted. All that was needed was for the world to prevent his importing of weapons and mercenaries and stop the ruthless bombing of his air force.

The US isn't sending ground troops anytime soon. The air strikes and the other UN Nations are more than enough for us to keep our ground troops where they are.

...I'm interested in seeing which nation steps up if ground troops are needed.

 

 

Ground troops are not needed and will never be accepted. All that was needed was for the world to prevent his importing of weapons and mercenaries and stop the ruthless bombing of his air force.

 

If things get worse I'm sure it's a possibility that that ground troops may be needed. It's very obvious that the US wants to do as much as we can without resorting to sending in troops, because lets face it, we already have enough on our hands as it is. I feel as of right now, I'd put my money on France sending ground troops in if indeed it does comes to that. But of course I hope it doesn't.

...I'm interested in seeing which nation steps up if ground troops are needed.

 

 

Ground troops are not needed and will never be accepted. All that was needed was for the world to prevent his importing of weapons and mercenaries and stop the ruthless bombing of his air force.

 

If things get worse I'm sure it's a possibility that that ground troops may be needed. It's very obvious that the US wants to do as much as we can without resorting to sending in troops, because lets face it, we already have enough on our hands as it is. I feel as of right now, I'd put my money on France sending ground troops in if indeed it does comes to that. But of course I hope it doesn't.

 

I can pretty much guarantee it wont.

 

Gadafii was pushed back from the East all the way to Sirte and only managed to reverse his losses by using his air force. Sirte itself is boiling yet unable to move due to heavy security within it; until reinforcements from the East are banging on the doors that is. Reinforcements that were only held back by the air attacks that have now ended.

 

In the Western region you have Tripoli boiling and unable to move as well due to him having the vast majority of his forces there. A couple of weeks ago when Tajoora was moving in to relieve pressure, they were strafed. In the Western Mountain you have all the cities there free yet unable to move in and assist due to their being surrounded and hit by artillery; which has now stopped.

 

The only reason Zawia was able to put up the fight it did at the beginning, before getting their hands on heavy weapons from captured and defecting units, was due to Zintan (a city in the besieged Western Mountain) managing to smuggle them some.

 

There is a reason the UN moved as fast (relatively) as it did. They were asked to by the people. The people asked for a NFZ and specifically refused ground troops.

Edited March 19, 201115 yr by tml

War, huh, yeah! What is it goood for? Just another moooovie! Mike moore, j'mon y'all!

 

In all seriousness, we all expected this to happen. No real shocker that the us got involved, again. Me thinks they love to fight too much!

War, huh, yeah! What is it goood for? Just another moooovie! Mike moore, j'mon y'all!

 

In all seriousness, we all expected this to happen. No real shocker that the us got involved, again. Me thinks they love to fight too much!

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

To be honest, I'm a little disappointed that other countries did not take up Cameron's initiative sooner. I think the UN still functions far too slowly. Far more lives could have been saved if action was taken at least a few days sooner.

Edited March 20, 201115 yr by Will_H

Looks like a good idea to me. This might be the first time the UN has ever been useful.

War, huh, yeah! What is it goood for? Just another moooovie! Mike moore, j'mon y'all!

 

In all seriousness, we all expected this to happen. No real shocker that the us got involved, again. Me thinks they love to fight too much!

me thinks you haven't a damn clue what you're talking about

 

Does he ever?

I think my biggest concern is how many years of arms deals we, the UK, as well as others countries have made with Libya in the past. We'll could end up fighting, yet again, an army that's using weapons that we supplied.

 

The worst thing that the Coalition (the 5 nation one, not the government) could do right now is directly supply arms to the rebels. If they end up forming an oppressive or extremist government because of the power vacuum, the cycle will only continue.

[bleep] it. Let's nuke Russia

My best friend's brother is in the seventh fleet. We're just instituting a no-fly zone and protecting who we can. I doubt we'll have any boots on the ground; not in anything but support roles at least. As Rocco said, this is a French war that we're all getting dragged into due to common interests, not to mention for the Libyans themselves. Although I cannot support any violent revolution. It will only continue the cycle of oppression.

My best friend's brother is in the seventh fleet. We're just instituting a no-fly zone and protecting who we can. I doubt we'll have any boots on the ground; not in anything but support roles at least. As Rocco said, this is a French war that we're all getting dragged into due to common interests, not to mention for the Libyans themselves. Although I cannot support any violent revolution. It will only continue the cycle of oppression.

I don't think that's true - sometimes violence is necessary for revolution, and indeed has sometimes been successful. It really depends on who ends up in power afterwards - the american revolution for example was a violent one yet it managed to stop the oppression.

Oh great, another war

Oh great, another war

^ My thoughts. Those humans and their obsession with killing each other :P

I think my biggest concern is how many years of arms deals we, the UK, as well as others countries have made with Libya in the past. We'll could end up fighting, yet again, an army that's using weapons that we supplied.

 

The worst thing that the Coalition (the 5 nation one, not the government) could do right now is directly supply arms to the rebels. If they end up forming an oppressive or extremist government because of the power vacuum, the cycle will only continue.

 

According to BBC news 24, Gadaffi hs stated he is preparing to 'arm the country' with millions of weapons. So unfortunately it seems you could be right, but it would actually be the militia backed by the UN fighting weapons supplied by the UN.

 

Definitely a good move by the UN to go in though.