U.S. Navy fires missiles at Libyan air defenses, Obama to speak shortly

[bangkokrick]

$112 MILLION WASTED OVERNIGHT

when the dust settles and the new muslim regime backed by Al Qaeda is in control, these insurgents will spit on their new found friendship with the western allies, as the infidels they see us as

this is a major blunder by all the parties involved, they should have left it well alone and let this civil war work itself out.........

Agreed, but you have to ask , who instigated the rebel uprising? It's all part of a bigger picture and these tactics have been used for decades.

I think it is obvious who instigated the rebel uprising. Who was the first to recognize them? Who was the first to call for military action? France of course.

According to the BBC the French struck 1st, without informing the coalition? This has upset the US and GB. I bet it upset the Libyan's more!

[bonobo]

I do not think that we should be there - we have more than enough on our plate - but a no-fly zone in a hostile environment requires the removal of anti-aircraft missile launchers.

I do not claim to be an expert in air to air capabilities but...I do know today's fighters have made dog fights obsolete.

Even older model fighters had laser guided air to ground capabilities. So if ground force proved to be hostile of course at that point it becomes a target.

But again I like you in this case agree we should not be there in the first place.

So I wonder if the mission is a no fly zone is not the capabilities in our fighters & ships there to police from a distance?

Firing on a countries defense systems before having been fired upon seems like a hostile aggression to me.

I don't necessarily think we should be there, but the US is acting on both Arab League and French pressure on this. Whether that is smart or not will be seen. I have my doubts.

However, in the pursuit of a no-fly zone, taking out air defenses is a requirement to allow for the patrols of the coalition air forces. And patrols are needed. You can't monitor a no-fly zone from US carriers offshore and from other national fighters back in their home or allied airfields. A Libyan plane could take off, make a 3-minute sortie, bomb the opposition, then get back before anyone could respond.

Additionally, "air defenses" is a pretty broad term. It is highly likely that some air control facilities were also taken out.

Strategically, I am not overly comfortable with this. But tactically, this move is within standard military doctrine.

[flying]

I don't necessarily think we should be there, but the US is acting on both Arab League and French pressure on this. Whether that is smart or not will be seen.

However, in the pursuit of a no-fly zone, taking out air defenses is a requirement to allow for the patrols of the coalition air forces. And patrols are needed. You can't monitor a no-fly zone from US carriers offshore and from other national fighters back in their home or allied airfields. A Libyan plane could take off, make a 3-minute sortie, bomb the opposition, then get back before anyone could respond.

Understood & in a clearly hostile environment I could understand it even better.

But again I question this cart before the horse over reaction

I mean where does it end? They could also do high altitude bombing of all know fighter aircraft locations

That would surely enforce a no fly zone

But would that be right at this juncture?

Just seems like punishment is being handed out before any crime of flying in the no fly zone have been committed

[mark45y]

I don't buy the 'war for oil' theory this time. Libyan production is quite small compared to the likes of Iraq, and the guy is a genuine nut case. I think its a good thing that other governments have decided to step in and stop a slaughter.

Size of production does not matter when all oil is traded in the world reserve currency USD

If the production is so small why then in the US stock markets oil jumped from $85 a barrel to over $107?

Yes agreed & none will argue that Gaddafi is a nut...Has been for decades...That did not stop many heads of States from shaking his hand in the past

As to the slaughter while I dont doubt folks have been killed.....Here in the US they spoke of hundreds then thousands & have as yet only ever shown two dead in a hospital from gun shot wounds.

I would think thousands dead would be covered by more than a picture of two laying dead in a hospital.

At the end of the day there are more questions than answers in Libya

I think it is probably fair to state that the people of the US, UK, France, China and Russia have absolutely no say in the way the countries are governed and the actions taken by the military of the countries.

I would imagine that Chinese and Russians have even less control of their government that the UK, US and France.

I also wonder if Obama has any pull. I have always thought Hillary was running things but I could be wrong.

I think this current action pretty well signals the end of the present administration in the US.

It would be hard to pick a country the US electorate cares less about than Libya.

Don't get me wrong I am not anti US but fellas, they have all jumped off the deep end on this one.

[bonobo]

I don't necessarily think we should be there, but the US is acting on both Arab League and French pressure on this. Whether that is smart or not will be seen.

However, in the pursuit of a no-fly zone, taking out air defenses is a requirement to allow for the patrols of the coalition air forces. And patrols are needed. You can't monitor a no-fly zone from US carriers offshore and from other national fighters back in their home or allied airfields. A Libyan plane could take off, make a 3-minute sortie, bomb the opposition, then get back before anyone could respond.

Understood & in a clearly hostile environment I could understand it even better.

But again I question this cart before the horse over reaction

I mean where does it end? They could also do high altitude bombing of all know fighter aircraft locations

That would surely enforce a no fly zone

But would that be right at this juncture?

Just seems like punishment is being handed out before any crime of flying in the no fly zone have been committed

Agreed that it might have made more sense to wait for a violation from a political standpoint. I am just writing from a purely military standpoint, the move is well within doctrine.

[chuckd]

What is the range of an F14 Tomcat or F22 air to air strike capability? What is the range of the ships ability to strike aircraft?

I was under the impression a no fly zone meant a territory over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky.

As such my guess ......is that the airspace could be policed from distance. Mainly I like the majority of Americans believe we should not even be there.

110 tomahawk missiles fired............Do they have pin point accuracy? After all the claim is care of civilian life isn't it?

Or is collateral damages just an assumed by product?.........Yet again?

Lastly once again I wish the world to know that this policing action like the others does not only not have the support of the majority of the American people

but it does not even have the majority support of Senate/Congress 65 percent oppose the U.S. military getting involved in Libya.

Opposition also cuts across party lines. Seven in 10 Democrats (70 percent) and independents (70 percent) oppose it, as do 59 percent of Republicans.

Some 25 percent of voters overall favor taking military action in Libya. Is that all it takes?

The special interests groups that direct the puppets we call our leaders whose direction is

based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests are again hard at work.

We follow in the footsteps of other dead empires

To respond to just a few of your questions...

1. The F-14 was decommissioned in 2006. They are no longer part of the US Navy arsenal. The USN now uses the FA-18 Hornet as their primary carrier based attack aircraft. If USAF F-22 Raptors are to be used, they will probably have to be deployed out of Sigonella in Italy using in-flight refueling.

Link here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1100&ct=1

And here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

2. The effective range for the AIM-120 AMRAAM is from 30 to 65 miles, depending which model and which firing platform is being used.

Link here: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

3. The effective range for ship board SAMs is a little over 100 miles. These missiles are defensive in nature and are for fleet protection. It is unlikely they would be effective in policing a no-fly zone.

Link here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2

4. The current Tomahawks are considered very accurate with a strike window of some 10 meters at impact. They have been substantially upgraded the past few years.

5. Are you able to provide a link to verify all those US public support statistics?

Thank you.

[jdinasia]

How does this firing of over 110 Tomahawk missiles at ground targets equate to a no fly zone?

Here we go............again

Firing at air defenses to protect the French jets enforcing the no fly zone makes sense doesn't it?

[flying]

To respond to just a few of your questions...

1. The F-14 was decommissioned in 2006. They are no longer part of the US Navy arsenal. The USN now uses the FA-18 Hornet as their primary carrier based attack aircraft. If USAF F-22 Raptors are to be used, they will probably have to be deployed out of Sigonella in Italy using in-flight refueling.

Link here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1100&ct=1

And here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

2. The effective range for the AIM-120 AMRAAM is from 30 to 65 miles, depending which model and which firing platform is being used.

Link here: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

3. The effective range for ship board SAMs is a little over 100 miles. These missiles are defensive in nature and are for fleet protection. It is unlikely they would be effective in policing a no-fly zone.

Link here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2

4. The current Tomahawks are considered very accurate with a strike window of some 10 meters at impact. They have been substantially upgraded the past few years.

5. Are you able to provide a link to verify all those US public support statistics?

Thank you.

Yes just after I posted I looked for myself & saw the F14 is old news these days.

I use to be quite the aircraft enthusiast hence my log on name of flying

But have lost touch due to circumstances this last decade.

As to links of public support no I saw it on the news here in the US today

It may be covered online if googled.

Will post a link if I see it.

Thanks for the info you provided...interesting.

[flying]

How does this firing of over 110 Tomahawk missiles at ground targets equate to a no fly zone?

Here we go............again

Firing at air defenses to protect the French jets enforcing the no fly zone makes sense doesn't it?

Yes it would if that were the case but was the French jets enforcing the no fly zone or protecting their business interests of Total and Areva?

Hate to be so cynical but how convenient the attack now. With the ultimate prize 4% of the global reserves. ( More than twice the US reserves )

Remember that while Libya does not have the largest reserves Libya has the lightest crude of the world.A diesel engine can run on the crude straight from the well.In addition it has an untapped uranium reserve.

Edited March 20, 2011 by flying

[Lite Beer]

Three U.S. B-2 stealth bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield/RT@CBSNews

[jdinasia]

How does this firing of over 110 Tomahawk missiles at ground targets equate to a no fly zone?

Here we go............again

Firing at air defenses to protect the French jets enforcing the no fly zone makes sense doesn't it?

Yes it would if that were the case but was the French jets enforcing the no fly zone or protecting their business interests of Total and Areva?

Hate to be so cynical but how convenient the attack now. With the ultimate prize 4% of the global reserves. ( More than twice the US reserves )

Remember that while Libya does not have the largest reserves Libya has the lightest crude of the world.A diesel engine can run on the crude straight from the well.In addition it has an untapped uranium reserve.

You are welcome to whatever conspiracy theories you wish to entertain

These actions (unlike some previous actions by the US/UK) have broad support through the UN. I am not sitting in the US watching FOX. I am not willing to assume that the no-fly-zone is equal to anything other than preventing Libyan jets to be used against a population with civilians present. I don't think I have read anything yet about anybody putting boots on the ground which would be a needed requirement to exert any control other than enforcing a no-fly-zone.

[beechguy]

How does this firing of over 110 Tomahawk missiles at ground targets equate to a no fly zone?

Here we go............again

You have to knock out the defenses with missiles before sending aircraft in, no?

What is the range of an F14 Tomcat or F22 air to air strike capability? What is the range of the ships ability to strike aircraft?

I was under the impression a no fly zone meant a territory over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky.

As such my guess ......is that the airspace could be policed from distance. Mainly I like the majority of Americans believe we should not even be there.

110 tomahawk missiles fired............Do they have pin point accuracy? After all the claim is care of civilian life isn't it?

Or is collateral damages just an assumed by product?.........Yet again?

Lastly once again I wish the world to know that this policing action like the others does not only not have the support of the majority of the American people

but it does not even have the majority support of Senate/Congress 65 percent oppose the U.S. military getting involved in Libya.

Opposition also cuts across party lines. Seven in 10 Democrats (70 percent) and independents (70 percent) oppose it, as do 59 percent of Republicans.

Some 25 percent of voters overall favor taking military action in Libya. Is that all it takes?

The special interests groups that direct the puppets we call our leaders whose direction is

based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests are again hard at work.

We follow in the footsteps of other dead empires

The U.S. hasn't used F-14's since late 2006, and I don't think the F-22 has been deployed, at least in any great numbers, to Europe yet. I think the average range for the air to air missiles is about 30 miles, and the tomahawks are I would say are extremely accurate. If there are any civilian casualties, it would be because the Libyan Army chose to locate their equipment near civilians.

I didn't see your post before, good information chuckd.

Edited March 20, 2011 by beechguy

[Hawaiian]

I read three threads and I can only find one poster who wants the West to intervene in Libya, Soft George. Did I miss anyone?

Um the U.N and Arab Nations just to name a few. I do not condone the mad man killing his own people. Now that the can of worms has been opened Gadaffi has to be removed and no I am not saying kill him.

Leaders of the coalition forces have been talking for days about the need for the atrocities to stop and saying that Gadaffi must go. Since Gadaffi has become even more bold these nations must now back their words with actions. There are numerous reasons for removing or neutralizing this unstable madman. Although the risks are great, I think eventually this will prove to be a worthwhile effort.

[flying]

. I am not willing to assume that the no-fly-zone is equal to anything other than preventing Libyan jets to be used against a population with civilians present. I don't think I have read anything yet about anybody putting boots on the ground which would be a needed requirement to exert any control other than enforcing a no-fly-zone.

Three U.S. B-2 stealth bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield/RT@CBSNews

Man no sooner said than done

No fly zone = guilty till proven incapable of flight

As for boots on the ground.... As Gaddafi & supporters are in the cities how else will they be removed from power?

I will put money on the fact there will be boots on the ground

At that point when the civilians who support Gaddafi are armed to defend their city...will they then be transformed from civilians to enemy combatants?

Just wish it did not go this way.

[jdinasia]

U.N. imposes no-fly zone over Libya

March 17th, 2011 06:39 PM ET (NY TIME)

The U.N. Security Council on Thursday imposed a no-fly zone extending over all of Libya to try to halt Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's mounting attacks against rebel positions.

The resolution states that "all necessary means" can be used to enforce the no-fly zone. Flights to provide humanitarian aid, medicine or for evacuations are exempt.

The vote was 10 for, none against and five abstention

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/u-n-imposes-no-fly-zone-over-libya/

[flying]

The vote was 10 for, none against and five abstention

Yes but realize

The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."

Then also realize the five were not lightweight countries

[Phatcharanan]

How does this firing of over 110 Tomahawk missiles at ground targets equate to a no fly zone?

Here we go............again

Its done to knock out the Air Defence and Command Centres...........thus hopefully making the threat to our own planes much less.

[brahmburgers]

It is one thing for the US & allies to make this move it is another when Russia & China state openly calls for stability.

China and Russia didn't vote against the no-fly resolution, they abstained. Both could have vetoed the resolution, but neither chose to do so. They aren't backing Gadaffi. I don't buy the 'war for oil' theory this time. Libyan production is quite small compared to the likes of Iraq, and the guy is a genuine nut case. I think its a good thing that other governments have decided to step in and stop a slaughter.

I agree. P.S. also Brazil abstained on the Sec.Council. China will ALWAYS lean to commercial interests over human rights. That's why they aren't involved either with Iraq or Afghanistan, except to rush in after the coalition does the dirty work, and, with big smiles, wave mineral contracts offers in the faces of locals. China didn't get involved in East Timor, in the Balkans. Its only involvement with Sudan was to try and make commercial deals on the fringes.

One of the spookiest moments for Chinese foreign policy thugs was when Bosnia declared and achieved independence from Serbia. Scary visions of Tibet and Taiwan gaining full sovereignty tormented politburo minds. It's also no surprise that the movie Avatar was forced to stop showing in China in its 2nd week, while it was breaking records for attendance. It shows low-tech insurgents taking on and beating the bloated established military regime.

I think it is obvious who instigated the rebel uprising. Who was the first to recognize them? Who was the first to call for military action? France of course.

If you think France could incite 90% of men in Libya, between the ages of 15 and 45, into a sustained armed insurrection - you're naive indeed.

If you're against the armed intervention, then perhaps you're in favor of insurgents and bystanders getting killed by Gadaffi's armed forces.

[cmsally]

One wonders , with election time coming up for Sarkozy, whether there are some skeletons in the closet.

Gadhafi funded Sarkozy election campaign?

With French planes cruising around the area before the Paris summit so they could strike at an opportune moment.

Sarkozy struts the stage

France & Libya

[jdinasia]

The vote was 10 for, none against and five abstention

Yes but realize

The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."

Then also realize the five were not lightweight countries

Being pedantic doesn't really help. 2 of the abstentions could have vetoed but they didn't, some countries choose to sit on the fence but if they had objected either China or Russia could have prevented this. Call it what you will but it was certainly a vote with no dissenting votes

[EnSvenskTiger]

"The pack of lies.

Indeed, the same London Telegraph now dashing across their headlines "Britain and America have rained missiles on Libya as Col Muammar Gaddafi defied the world and continued to attack civilians," told us in the early stages of the US-backed Libyan unrest that Qaddafi had fled to Venezuela, citing "credible Western intelligence sources."

Of course, evidence that Qaddafi has been "attacking civilians" has not yet been produced in any shape form or way with US Department of Defense's Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen in fact, both confirming "We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever." Additionally, BBC made an apparently little read footnote that their reports were impossible to verify.

BBC states in their article "The difficulty of reporting from inside Libya:" "The BBC and other news organisations are relying on those on the ground to tell us what's happening. Their phone accounts - often accompanied by the sound or gunfire and mortars - are vivid. However, inevitably, it means we cannot independently verify the accounts coming out of Libya. That's why we don't present such accounts as "fact" - they are "claims" or "allegations"."

Apparently "claims" and "allegations" are all the UN needed to rubber stamp yet another globalist war of conquest as they continue to sew together their one world government.

The Russian government went as far as bringing forth evidence that suggests such air strikes never even took place. "

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-another-war-another-pack-of-lies.html

[flying]

"The pack of lies.

Of course, evidence that Qaddafi has been "attacking civilians" has not yet been produced in any shape form or way with US Department of Defense's Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen in fact, both confirming "We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever." Additionally, BBC made an apparently little read footnote that their reports were impossible to verify.

As I said earlier ....here in the US we have only ever seen two dead in a hospital. Yet the talking heads of Obama & Hillary have said thousands lay dead.

In this day & age of instant info & images we have yet to see anything tangible.

Yet they can read the date on a dime on a beach from outer space.

conspiracy theory? I dont think so....I just find it odd that evidence of such horrific acts are as lacking as the proof of weapons of mass destruction were elsewhere

Edited March 20, 2011 by flying

[mark45y]

It is one thing for the US & allies to make this move it is another when Russia & China state openly calls for stability.

China and Russia didn't vote against the no-fly resolution, they abstained. Both could have vetoed the resolution, but neither chose to do so. They aren't backing Gadaffi. I don't buy the 'war for oil' theory this time. Libyan production is quite small compared to the likes of Iraq, and the guy is a genuine nut case. I think its a good thing that other governments have decided to step in and stop a slaughter.

I agree. P.S. also Brazil abstained on the Sec.Council. China will ALWAYS lean to commercial interests over human rights. That's why they aren't involved either with Iraq or Afghanistan, except to rush in after the coalition does the dirty work, and, with big smiles, wave mineral contracts offers in the faces of locals. China didn't get involved in East Timor, in the Balkans. Its only involvement with Sudan was to try and make commercial deals on the fringes.

One of the spookiest moments for Chinese foreign policy thugs was when Bosnia declared and achieved independence from Serbia. Scary visions of Tibet and Taiwan gaining full sovereignty tormented politburo minds. It's also no surprise that the movie Avatar was forced to stop showing in China in its 2nd week, while it was breaking records for attendance. It shows low-tech insurgents taking on and beating the bloated established military regime.

I think it is obvious who instigated the rebel uprising. Who was the first to recognize them? Who was the first to call for military action? France of course.

If you think France could incite 90% of men in Libya, between the ages of 15 and 45, into a sustained armed insurrection - you're naive indeed.

If you're against the armed intervention, then perhaps you're in favor of insurgents and bystanders getting killed by Gadaffi's armed forces.

Me naive!!! I simply don't care. Countries get the governments they deserve. If the Libyans want to be rid of Gadaffi then they go to a major country and promise them financial rewards or make it seem somehow that a regime change is in the interest of the other country. That's what Ben Franklin did with the French and I assume someone in the new Libyan government did the same thing.

If a country wants to kill it's own citizens so be it. When they get tired of being killed they can change governments.

I've been there and done that and got the T shirt and let me tell you no one said thanks for helping.

[elcent]

I couldn't resist but to laugh out loud

Libyan envoy's secret visit to Tunis exposed

Libyan envoy's secret visit to Tunis exposed

Muammar Gaddafi has sent a top diplomat to Tunisia in what was supposed to be a secret visit.

Ali Treki, Libya's former foreign minister, is staying at the same hotel where Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, is booked when he arrives on Tuesday.

When Nazanine Moshiri, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tunisia, uncovered Ali Treki's visit to Tunis, the Libyan diplomat responded with a burst of rage.

Treki, who was president of the UN General Assembly until September, berated the Al Jazeera team when they filmed him in the lobby of the Regency Hotel in Gammarth, a suburb north of Tunis, on Saturday afternoon.

"You animal, stop shooting," Treki told Samir Gharbiah, Al Jazeera's cameraman, as his security personnel attempted to block Al Jazeera from filming.

Security staff at the hotel, at the request of Treki, tried to destroy Al Jazeera's camera, and to confiscate the footage of Treki. They manhandled Gharbiah and producer Youssef Gaigi, pushing them out into the hotel carpark.

They refused to allow the Al Jazeera team to leave and physically prevented Moshiri from getting in the car, holding the journalists captive in the parking lot for nearly an hour.

It was only after the Tunisian police intervened that Moshiri and her team were freed, tapes in hand. The hotel's manager apologised and tried to insist that no mention be made of the Regency in any reports about the incident, saying that it dampen the UN Secretary-General's willingness to stay at the hotel during his coming visit.

Gaigi said the hotel manager's change of stance came only after Al Jazeera had contacted the interior ministry.

"I believe he was under pressure from different people." Gaigi said.

Word had already spread on Twitter, and around 30 Libyan protesters arrived to demonstrate against the hotel's treatment of the journalists.

Apparently backing away from its support for Treki once the protesters arrived, the hotel permitted the protesters to raise the pre-Gaddafi Libyan flag that has been adopted by the Libyan opposition.

Gaddafi appointed Treki as his UN envoy on March 4, after Libya's previous representatives to the UN, Abdurrahman Mohamed Shelgham, and Ibrahim Dabbashi, distanced themselves from Gaddafi and played an instrumental role in passing Resolution 1970.

The US refused to allow Treki to travel to New York to take up the post. Treki must present himself in person to the Secretary-General in order to be accredited as his country's new ambassador.

In the meantime, Gaddafi has no representative at the UN, meaning he has no legal way to lobby support against block any resolutions concerning Libya.

[chachachacha]

It is one thing for the US & allies to make this move it is another when Russia & China state openly calls for stability.

China and Russia didn't vote against the no-fly resolution, they abstained. Both could have vetoed the resolution, but neither chose to do so. They aren't backing Gadaffi. I don't buy the 'war for oil' theory this time. Libyan production is quite small compared to the likes of Iraq, and the guy is a genuine nut case. I think its a good thing that other governments have decided to step in and stop a slaughter.

I agree. P.S. also Brazil abstained on the Sec.Council. China will ALWAYS lean to commercial interests over human rights. That's why they aren't involved either with Iraq or Afghanistan, except to rush in after the coalition does the dirty work, and, with big smiles, wave mineral contracts offers in the faces of locals. China didn't get involved in East Timor, in the Balkans. Its only involvement with Sudan was to try and make commercial deals on the fringes.

One of the spookiest moments for Chinese foreign policy thugs was when Bosnia declared and achieved independence from Serbia. Scary visions of Tibet and Taiwan gaining full sovereignty tormented politburo minds. It's also no surprise that the movie Avatar was forced to stop showing in China in its 2nd week, while it was breaking records for attendance. It shows low-tech insurgents taking on and beating the bloated established military regime.

I think it is obvious who instigated the rebel uprising. Who was the first to recognize them? Who was the first to call for military action? France of course.

If you think France could incite 90% of men in Libya, between the ages of 15 and 45, into a sustained armed insurrection - you're naive indeed.

If you're against the armed intervention, then perhaps you're in favor of insurgents and bystanders getting killed by Gadaffi's armed forces.

[Estrada]

$112 MILLION WASTED OVERNIGHT

when the dust settles and the new muslim regime backed by Al Qaeda is in control, these insurgents will spit on their new found friendship with the western allies, as the infidels they see us as

this is a major blunder by all the parties involved, they should have left it well alone and let this civil war work itself out.........

I worked in Libya for 6 years for Gaddafi and his regime on his personal pet project the Great Mad Man Made River. Be sure that the people behind the uprising are definitely not Al Qaeda or Muslim Fanatics. The only Libyans that appear to be anything like Al Qaeda are the ones shown waving green flags and shouting long live Gaddafi in Green Square. Remember that Saif-Islam recently let alot of Al Queda detainees out of prison, who swore allegience to him and are probably fighting for him not for the other side.

I can tell you from personal experience, that Gaddafi rules by fear, everyone is scared of him, I kept a low profile. 10 Bulgarian nurses were sentenced to death by firing squad although we all knew they were innocent of all charges. Another friend, Max Goldi, who was Country Director of ABB was jailed just for being Swiss, in retalliation for the arrest of Hannibal Gaddafi in a Swiss hotel when he had beaten up his servants. Subsequent to that Gaddafi suggested to teh UN that Switzerland be broken up and divided between Italy, France and Germany.

Originally, two sons, Saadi and Saif-Islam had the idea to introduce Democracy, to promote Tourism and to turn Libya into another Dubai withh Zwara being modelled on Monte Carlo with Casinos, hotels and a harbour for luxury yachts. To do this they persuaded Gaddafi to retire but instead he agreed to step down as leader if he was given the position of President of the United States of Africa, and they proceeded to pay a number of the Africa States considerebale sums to support this. The idea was that he would step down in September 2009, the 50th anniversary of the revolution. In the end the African states did not all support this and so Gaddafi refused to step down and relinguish power.

Two of my Libyan bosses, who had been working with these two sons to replace the old regime and establish a Democratic state, fell foul of Gaddafi and fled to Egypt in 2009, to join the opposition. Many of the younger generation have studied and travelled abroad and are into pop music, parties, and many other western persuits, which are not allowed in Libya, although Gaddafi and his sons hold rave parties even with Beyonce paying $2 Million to perform, whilst 26% of the youth have no job. Tourism is continually held back by the old Regime although Libya has the most stunning Roman and Greek buildings still standing including a whole city at Leptcis Magna. The people of Zwara, Al Zawiyah are Berber and are related to the Tunisians and the Lebanese, being decendents of the ancient Phoenicians.

Alot of them studied in the UK, Germany and the USA, and since 2006 when Gaddafi allowed them to have internet, have been communicating with the the outside World, and they realise that they are amongst the poorest people in the world despite Libya having earnt US$32.4Billion last year in oil money. That is US$5million per Libyan. This is what has caused them to seek to remove Gaddafi and seek a Western style democracy. Remember that Bengahzi was part of Cyrenia in the Ancient Greek Empire and the Greeks invented Democracy. These guys are definitely not Al Qaeda.

[Lite Beer]

Gaddafi defiant as Western nations launch air strikes

By Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Cairo/Tripoli.

Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi vowed to defend his country against "colonial aggression" as Western nations launched their first air strikes against Libyan defences and began enforcing a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya.

A French fighter jet launched the first attack Saturday evening, destroying a Libyan military vehicle on the ground as British and French planes began patrolling the skies.

US and British ships later fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at more than 20 air defences by the capital Tripoli, Gaddafi's stronghold, and the western city of Misrata.

British fighter jets fired missiles at key targets, the British Ministry of Defence confirmed early Sunday.

Anti-aircraft fire was heard in Tripoli early Sunday, according to British broadcaster the BBC.

Explosions were also heard in the capital, US broadcaster CNN reported, though it was not clear whether this was the result of any more missiles fired by Western fighter jets or ships.

Gaddafi in a brief audio message carried on Libyan state television said he had armed civilians to defend the country's independence, declaring that he would open arms depots to "all Libyans."

"The Libyan people will fight against this aggression," Gaddafi said.

News of the British and French jets entering Libyan airspace came shortly after the opposition called on the international community to take action to save civilians in Libya.

"The international community is very late in taking action," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the leader of the opposition's National Council in Benghazi, told broadcaster Al Jazeera.

Western nations had given Gaddafi an ultimatum on Friday to enforce a ceasefire against anti-government rebels and halt attacks on civilians, or face military action that was approved by the UN Security Council on Thursday and earlier backed by the Arab League.

A Libyan government spokesman said Libya was the victim of a "barbaric aggression" by Western countries and insisted Gaddafi's had imposed a ceasefire against anti-government forces.

The secretary-general of the Libyan Public Congress, Mohamed al-Zawi, said the Western attacks on Tripoli and Misrata "caused real harm against civilians and buildings."

But residents in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi fled eastwards to escape attacks by Gaddafi's forces, which had reportedly continued despite the alleged ceasefire and the enforcement of a no-fly zone.

"Far from introducing the ceasefire (Gaddafi) spoke about, he has actually stepped up the brutality and the attacks that we can all see," British Prime Minister David Cameron said in announcing his own country's participation in the military action.

The US Pentagon said the rocket launches were the "first phase" of a military operation against Gaddafi as attacks on civilians continued. Vice Admiral William Gortney said the US would need 6-12 hours to assess the success of its initial strikes on air defences.

Gaddafi's forces were shelling Benghazi despite the government's announcement Friday of an immediate ceasefire. Arab television network Al Jazeera reported that French fighter planes had destroyed four Libyan tanks by the city.

The opposition Libyan Youth Movement said on Twitter that it had reports of more shelling on the outskirts of Benghazi, with the number of casualties "increasing by the minute."

Footage on Al Arabiya showed a fighter plane falling from the sky, apparently shot down near Benghazi, to cheers in the background. It was not immediately known when the footage was taken.

The government said its armed forces were under attack west of Benghazi by "al-Qaeda affiliates," the official news agency reported.

Libya announced a ceasefire after the UN Security Council passed a resolution imposing a no-fly zone over the country banning flights in Libya's airspace and authorized "all necessary means" to implement the ban.

It was not clear whether Arab nations that had backed the no-fly zone were offering any military support to the Western-led strikes, but the US took pains to note that it was not alone in acting.

"We did not lead this, we did not engage in unilateral actions in any way, but we strongly support the international community," US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at an emergency summit of world nations in Paris.

In a letter to world leaders read earlier Saturday at a press conference by a government spokesman in Tripoli, Gaddafi said the resolution was void because the UN had no right "to interfere in the internal affairs of the country."

"You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet at our people, it is al-Qaeda," Gaddafi said in the statement.

"I have all the Libyan people supporting me and they are prepared to die for me," said Gaddafi.

-- The Nation 2011-03-20

[chachachacha]

So here we go again with the right wing Christian crusade. As to the rebels well seems their leaders are part & parcel of the Gaddaffi mob that has had their face pushed out.

The UN now is just a joey to the USA war mongers.

Can anybody tell me why no intervention in other Middle East Countries where the same is going on. How about Saudi ? They seem to be killing enough. The people of Libya are just being used as a porn .

Edited March 20, 2011 by bonobo
removed profanity and flaming language

[Ulysses G.]

So here we go again with the right wing Christian crusade.

Actually, this is mostly coming from the left. Many conservatives are saying it is a big mistake, but Hillary and Obama are insisting on it.

[Hawaiian]

Estrada, thank you for a very enlightening post. Whenever I saw rebels talking on the newscasts none of them seemed to be uneducated goat herders. If this is a good representation of the freedom fighters, then Libya has a chance for better future.