Poll: DELETED_74993

Firestar_3x · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:02

Merlin5 said:
Cyprus seems to be for british operations. But this article, I don't know, it looks like he proposed for overseeing complete operations of all allied forces to be based in naples.

"I have proposed that the military coordination of the operation be in the NATO base at Naples," Berlusconi told reporters after a meeting of world powers in Paris to plan a U.N.-mandated operation against Muammar Gaddafi's troops. He said Italy's military could also participate at a later stage."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/uk-libya-paris-berlusconi-idUKTRE72I3BX20110319

Interesting, i want to know why the French want such a key role, they must be keen to show support to our new UK / French military relationship.

Seems like we now know the reason why we had to fly 3,000 miles lastnight, cyprus wouldn't play ball and we didn't have access to Gioia del Colle Air Base at that time.

loltim · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:10

The clips of injured civilians in hospitals annoys me. Where were these clips when it was Gaddafi doing the damage?

Firestar_3x · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:13

Wouldn't read into it too much, lots of ground fighting going on at the moment, clearly lots of people will be getting injured due to this, Libya will only let stuff be broadcast when it suits them, clearly some of the general population will be killed by the airstrikes but you need to remember everything used to date is smart and guided.

Only exception might be the 40 or so bombs dropped onto runways by the B2's.

rypt · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:18

The Arab League are a bunch of hypocrites ... they ASK the UN for a no fly zone, then bitch at us when we enforce it

We should just tell that whole part of the world to get stuffed

And the Russians going on about disproportionate use of force is a joke too, look at Georgia and Chechnya.

loltim · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:22

rypt said:
The Arab League are a bunch of hypocrites ... they ASK the UN for a no fly zone, then bitch at us when we enforce it

It's all quite bizarre, it's as if they didn't even read the resolution?

* demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
* imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
* authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
* strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
* imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
* imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
* extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
* establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.

3rd point?

dirtydog · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:24

Firestar_3x said:
Wouldn't read into it too much, lots of ground fighting going on at the moment, clearly lots of people will be getting injured due to this, Libya will only let stuff be broadcast when it suits them, clearly some of the general population will be killed by the airstrikes but you need to remember everything used to date is smart and guided.

Only exception might be the 40 or so bombs dropped onto runways by the B2's.

Haha, like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing

Firestar_3x · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:26

Congratulations, if you dig hard enough you can find problems with everything.

In adition to the above, that was 1991, things have moved on slightly since then................

rypt · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:27

dirtydog said:
Haha, like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing

They hit the target they were aiming at there, the target was just wrong though

Westyfield2 · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:28

Firestar_3x said:
Interesting, i want to know why the French want such a key role, they must be keen to show support to our new UK / French military relationship.

Sarkozy's popularity isn't great in France so he wants to be seen as a man of action.

dirtydog · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:28

Firestar_3x said:
Congratulations, if you dig hard enough you can find problems with everything.

In adition to the above, that was 1991, things have moved on slightly since then................

No they haven't, we're still killing civilians regularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan actually.

loltim · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:28

rypt said:
They hit the target they were aiming at there, the target was just wrong though

What did they think it was?

dirtydog · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:29

rypt said:
They hit the target they were aiming at there, the target was just wrong though

I'm sure that will be a consolation to the dead and their loved ones.

Firestar_3x · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:30

dirtydog said:
No they haven't, we're still killing civilians regularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan actually.

Tosh, i bet we kill a lot less civilians in modern combat, they have actively pushed towards this in the past 10 - 15 years.

For starters, new weapons are better and even more accurate.

But more importantly we have unmanned aircraft now, better res imaging better listening devices etc etc.

rypt · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:30

Tim said:
What did they think it was?

afaik they though it was turned into a military bunker of some description

dirtydog said:
I'm sure that will be a consolation to the dead and their loved ones.

We aren't talking about targeting wrong installations here, we are talking about bombs hitting unintended targets.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, it is hard to target non-uniformed enemy combatants who try to blend in. Of course we sometimes target wrong and kill people, but usually we do not miss targets

The worst example in Iraq was Fallujah ... but that was an urban battle against people who just blended in with the locals. Plus the locals were stupid for not fleeing the city KNOWING that the US were going to attack it

dirtydog · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:31

Firestar_3x said:
Tosh, i bet we kill a lot less civilians in modern combat, they have actively pushed towards this in the past 10 - 15 years.

For starters, new weapons are better and even more accurate.

But more importantly we have unmanned aircraft now, better res imaging better listening devices etc etc.

It isn't tosh, it is a matter of factual record, do I need to dig out some news reports?

dirtydog · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:32

rypt said:
We aren't talking about targeting wrong installations here, we are talking about bombs hitting unintended targets.

The end result is the same :confused:

rypt · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:33

dirtydog said:
The end result is the same

So? The method is different.

Firestar_3x · 20 Mar 2011 at 16:34

dirtydog said:
It isn't tosh, it is a matter of factual record, do I need to dig out some news reports?

I've not for one second said we don't accidently kill civilians if you dig back through the past few pages you will see this, the only way to do that would be not to drop anything from the air or fire from the ground.

You said nothing's changed since 1991, it quite clearly has.

Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

Poll: DELETED_74993

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

Yes

No