LIBYA (Merged) Use this thread ONLY
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Hi, NR 
I suspect that the Qataris aren't fully geared up for deployments. I suspect there may be a lack of practice in that department, but good for them for participating.
As for the stupid Meeja comment ...
I suspect that the Qataris aren't fully geared up for deployments. I suspect there may be a lack of practice in that department, but good for them for participating.
As for the stupid Meeja comment ...
Any sign of the Qataris yet? Or have they stopped off in Beirut for some R+R?
Maybe they were blown in (from) Beirut, as previously suspected?
Good to see them on board.
PS Are the Saudis really contributing a/c?
Latest BBC report referred to refuelling by "VC-10 Tristars" - wheeyyyyy
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are on their way to Corsica.. As per the meeja.
"Qatar operates French-built Mirage 2000 aircraft, Teisseire said. As France is a longstanding strategic defense partner of Qatar, Paris has decided to deploy on the same territory as Qatar a certain number of aircraft in order to operate jointly with the Qatari Air Force, he said.
Privately, a French defense executive guessed the Qatari Mirages would fly to France and operate out of the French air force base 126 at Solenzara, on the island of Corsica.
The French Air Force is expected to operate increasingly from Solenzara.
Asked why the American and British forces did not hit the Libyan air defenses before the French jets flew into the operational area, Teisseire said: "If the joint staffs acted in this way together, it was because they together thought it was the right way to go.
"The actions were coordinated. The French aircraft were in the zone and completed a first mission in the face of an acknowledged threat to the civilian population," he said.
"Qatar operates French-built Mirage 2000 aircraft, Teisseire said. As France is a longstanding strategic defense partner of Qatar, Paris has decided to deploy on the same territory as Qatar a certain number of aircraft in order to operate jointly with the Qatari Air Force, he said.
Privately, a French defense executive guessed the Qatari Mirages would fly to France and operate out of the French air force base 126 at Solenzara, on the island of Corsica.
The French Air Force is expected to operate increasingly from Solenzara.
Asked why the American and British forces did not hit the Libyan air defenses before the French jets flew into the operational area, Teisseire said: "If the joint staffs acted in this way together, it was because they together thought it was the right way to go.
"The actions were coordinated. The French aircraft were in the zone and completed a first mission in the face of an acknowledged threat to the civilian population," he said.
I suspect that there is a French expression equivalent to:
"He who will not risk cannot win."
Sans fortitude, sans gloire
or something like that
"He who will not risk cannot win."
Sans fortitude, sans gloire
or something like that
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
AVM Bagwell says:
Is this in accord with the supposed 'no fly' policy? His words, to me, are worrisome. If he is meaningful, then the next step surely has to be 'boots on the ground', with all the consequences. Be very careful young AVMs; and all those who are of similar experience and given responsibility. Lead us not into another decade or more of wasted UK lives, unless there is convincing need.
No doubt most here would want to see the Libyan tyrant exterminated; but those charged with making decisions on our behalf should, IMHO, be unequivocal and determined in their intention. P^ss, or get off the pot.
"We have the Libyan ground forces under constant observation and we attack them whenever they threaten civilians or attack
No doubt most here would want to see the Libyan tyrant exterminated; but those charged with making decisions on our behalf should, IMHO, be unequivocal and determined in their intention. P^ss, or get off the pot.
Last edited by jindabyne; 23rd Mar 2011 at 22:01.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm hugely pleased to see other Arab nations contributing. It stops The Duck talking about 'Crusaders' for a start, and at the same time [hopefully] gives other Arab nations some credibility in this context.
It is, after all, fundamentally ...
An internal Libyan issue.
An African/Arab issue.
The foregoing obviously excludes Humanitarian aspects, Western oil interests, NATO's Southern Flank ... and the fact that there are many countries where similar interventions could be considered justifiable
It is, after all, fundamentally ...
An internal Libyan issue.
An African/Arab issue.
The foregoing obviously excludes Humanitarian aspects, Western oil interests, NATO's Southern Flank ... and the fact that there are many countries where similar interventions could be considered justifiable
Similar interventions which don't involve anything from you. What is your input to all this, other than an opinion?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: England
Age: 32
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jindabyne,
The wording of resolution 1973 was such that if Mr G's forces were advancing on Libyan civillians, then Coalition aircraft could engage them.
I fail to see how, if indeed this is to be 'over' quickly, Coalition ground forces wouldn't be involved. The second friendly aircraft pull out of the country will be the second his forces start killing again. If this is genuinely to be a war fought from the air, all that is going to happen is an expensive stalemate. Of course, there is always the possibility of the rebels getting the upperhand, but from what we have seen so far... Is that so likely?
The wording of resolution 1973 was such that if Mr G's forces were advancing on Libyan civillians, then Coalition aircraft could engage them.
I fail to see how, if indeed this is to be 'over' quickly, Coalition ground forces wouldn't be involved. The second friendly aircraft pull out of the country will be the second his forces start killing again. If this is genuinely to be a war fought from the air, all that is going to happen is an expensive stalemate. Of course, there is always the possibility of the rebels getting the upperhand, but from what we have seen so far... Is that so likely?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The wording of resolution 1973 was such that if Mr G's forces were advancing on Libyan civillians, then Coalition aircraft could engage them.
to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi
Last edited by jindabyne; 23rd Mar 2011 at 22:38.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pray tell - just how do "we" protect civilians WITHOUT engaging the military combatants? I can promise you that a unilateral ceasefire by the rebels would not lead to a corresponding cessation of hostilities by government forces.
It's going to be an ongoing conflict between the various interested parties for years to varying levels of intensity. Characteristics will be somewhat irregular forces and battles which result in civilian deaths and other chaos. if we get involved any more than we are it'll be another drain on resources, we'll be there for years and we'll end up being friends with neither 'side'. When we leave it'll all kick off again anyway.
The best we can do is to nullify the advantage the 'govt' side has through attacking their military from the air and then just hoping that somehow the rebels win or they find a resolution. If the rebels win don't expect it to be love hugs all round either - there will be blood letting and recriminations.
In future - perhaps don't lend support to undemocratic tyrannical and corrupt dictators just because they are 'stable' and allow us to do business. It always blows up in our faces and ends up costing us.
The best we can do is to nullify the advantage the 'govt' side has through attacking their military from the air and then just hoping that somehow the rebels win or they find a resolution. If the rebels win don't expect it to be love hugs all round either - there will be blood letting and recriminations.
In future - perhaps don't lend support to undemocratic tyrannical and corrupt dictators just because they are 'stable' and allow us to do business. It always blows up in our faces and ends up costing us.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whichever side wins, there'll be a flood of refugees looking for a safe haven in Europe and other countries that have proven to be soft touches. If it's the rebels who win, we can expect some very unsavoury characters with a good sob story. Just the kind of people we need in our societies.
Assuming this is not disinformation, we have her rank, name, squadron, normal base, current base, and face (helmet off).
What next: telephone number, perhaps? Astonishing.
What next: telephone number, perhaps? Astonishing.
I can promise you that a unilateral ceasefire by the rebels would not lead to a corresponding cessation of hostilities by government forces.
Does the resolution specify from whom we are protecting the civilians? Over on Jet Blast the question has been asked about whether we would be obliged to intervene were the rebels to imperil civilians e.g. attacking a town where Gaddafi's forces were holed up (ediited to add: like Ajdabiya).
Last edited by dead_pan; 24th Mar 2011 at 13:03.