Libya airstrikes could start 'within hours of resolution'

[humbled_opinion]

Source: BBC

The United Nations seems on the brink of taking a momentous decision. After hanging back for days the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up. The fact that the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, will be here in person is a sign of French confidence that the Russians and Chinese won't block the resolution.
The latest draft I have seen goes well beyond calling for a no-fly zone. It says that the Arab League, individual nations and organizations like Nato are authorized to "take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat...including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force."

I am told the first strikes will be unilateral ones by British and French aircraft. They could be in the air within hours. It is likely five Arab air forces will take part. Hillary Clinton has said it will mean bombing Libyan air defences. Nato will step up if asked but could take a while.



Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/03/airstrikes_on_libya_could_comm.html

---

Is there any hope that this action will produce the effect of allowing the pro Democracy forces to prevail agains Qaddafi at this late date? If there is little chance then these actions may just become recruitment fodder for the Jihadists.....

[ixion]

1. They just need time to get the cameras in place for a little 'Shock and Awe'

I can't really begin to tell you how sick this type of crap makes me. :puke:

[gateley]

2. I understand what you're saying, but it would bother me more if we ignored

these peoples' pleas for help. I posted elsewhere that it probably wasn't easy for them to approach the West, albeit through the UN, and I'm guessing if they could have found another way they would have.

For the first time, I'm hopeful a military action could actually help. :shrug:

[ixion]

7. while I completely understand your good intentions

military solutions are never good ones, in my opinion.

[gateley]

10. And I agree with that, too - in theory and in my heart of hearts, but I don't see

any other way we could help these people at this point. Gadaffi is using weapons to kill them, I think we have to use weapons to take out HIS weapons.

Nothing is black or white, usually, although it would sure make life simpler if it was!

[WheelWalker]

21. I believe this is actually somewhat historic - never before have

the 'Western Block,' the UN and the Arab states all in agreement to do something about a situation in that neck of the woods. Quite historic, maybe, and a harbinger of true shift in the global paradigm.

[gateley]

43. You're right - and I was thinking the same thing but dared not post it! Of course,

I wouldn't have been able to express it as elegantly and concisely as you! :pals:

[Raksha]

25. I've always believed that stopping genocide

is the ONLY moral use of miltary force--provided of course that genocide really is occurring. I've been following the Libya threads for weeks and I'm convinced that it is.

[gateley]

3. Not helping might become recruitment fodder for the Jihadists, too. I kind of

view them like I do the Republicans - doesn't matter what we do, they'll turn it into something they can use against us.

The bottom line, in my mind, is - these people asked for help. Ideally this can give them a chance to keep up the fight. They don't have that chance going up against Gaddafi's forces with their weaponry.

[humbled_opinion]

6. Yes you have good points but ....

Aren't we in enough wars already? How much more can we tolerate, are we going to do the same in Syria, Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Iran.... When will it be enough, we cannot afford to be the worlds policeman where are the fiscal hawks regarding the cost of war? End wars and we will be able to pay off the debt without putting teachers out of work or starving our poorest and most vulnerable citizens end wars and healthcare could be affordable... This nation has its priorities backward and now I see it doesn't really matter who is in the White House they are all complicit....

[gateley]

8. Oh man, we're in WAY too many wars already! We should be in ZERO! But I'm

not viewing this as 'another war' which may be naive on my part, but rather as an action that has an end in sight. AND, we're not undertaking this alone.

Oddly, Obama was criticized by the Hawkiest of the Hawks, McCain and Lieberman, that he hadn't acted fast enough on this! I don't know what the rest of the rank and file on their side think, though.

I fault Obama for believing the Military when it comes to Afghanistan -- Biden advised him NOT to escalate. To Obama's credit it did postpone a decision until he thought about it and solicited other opinions. Unfortunately, he bought the Military's spin. What does he EXPECT them to say? :eyes:

The ONLY way we can get back on our feet financially and take care of our own is to end those wars and I fervently hope Obama sees the light soon. It's not only up to him, but he needs to start moving in that direction at the very least.

Anyway, I'm hopeful (deluded?) that this will be relatively short-lived, enough to give the Libyan people a fighting chance to keep on going, and other countries will be paying for it as well. This, I think, is justified. There's no way, whatever it costs us, that that money would instead end up where we know it belongs.

[BenzoDia]

14. I understand where you're coming from completely.

But if civilian casualties start adding up and there is prolonged fighting, military action will become mighty unpopular.

Going into Afghanistan was a mighty popular idea at the time iirc, but look at us now.

[jaysunb]

17. It won't be prolonged

The Lybian military is a joke and have no answer for what's about to happen.

I personally believe most of the military brass will turn on Gadaffi....before anything actually happens.

Just my $.02 :shrug:

[BenzoDia]

18. I agree that their military will get thrashed.

I'm just a little worried about getting caught off guard like we did in Afghanistan. We ran face first into a style of warfare we're not equipped for.

At any rate, fingers crossed for a swift resolution.

[gateley]

44. I think a big difference here is that we're not "going in". They've made it clear

they don't want us there on the ground, and I really don't think anybody would WANT to do that at this point.

[itsrobert]

4. I expect any minute now.

We will see.

[Baclava]

5. I'd expect a wave of cruise missle attacks to take out SAM sites and military bases first.

A couple hundred maybe, for a start, to soften him up.

You can bet everyone knows where all the targets are.

[rabs]

13. So what happens

if and when gadaffi moves mobile SAM batteries into civilian neighborhoods. Will those cruise missiles still be fired?

Not saying Gadaffi will do it, just wondering whether NATO is up to it in that scenario.

[Baclava]

16. Human shields? Possible. I don't think the 'coalition of the willing' will give him time for that.

I'd be more worried about him gassing his own people.

He's a nutjob.

[joshcryer]

32. Gaddafi has likely already done it.

[unkachuck]

9. "take all necessary measures...to protect civilians..."

....it's about time 'we' do something....the long term benefits of supporting the Libyan people will more than outweigh any immediate liabilities....

[wick]

11. maybe now they will have a fighting chance, we needed one

[gateley]

12. I hope so, and I honestly think that's the intent of this action. I truly don't think

anybody participating has any ulterior motives (other than garnering good will from the Arab nations).

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[joshcryer]

31. Of course there are other motives, like stabalizing the region.

But what people are stupidly overlooking is that Gaddafi was selling the oil before this happened. It's stupid to whine about the oil being sold, it doesn't really matter who controls the state as long as it's being sold.

[joshcryer]

29. Irony: Treaty of Paris. Were it not for the French the US would be a colony!

[wick]

15. agree, sure wish them luck

[disillusioned73]

19. ughh, I really hope this goes well..

the last thing that is needed is another military quagmire..

[avebury]

20. As much as I feel sorry for the people

we just can't afford another war. I am sick and tired of financing the military industrial complex. If we don't focus on what is going on in our country who do you think will come to our aid (the peasants of the USA) when we are in the same boat as these other countries?

[GSLevel9]

22. fuck yeah BABY!!!

Will they use daisy cutters? Oh how I love them... while they're at it... a few cruise missiles into Gadafi's office would be nice!!!!!!!


FUCK YEAH 3 WARS at once!!!! We're #1 We're #1 We're #1

:sarcasm:

oh btw, that was sarcasm and I don't think ONE AMERICAN life should be risked or lost for Libya. Sorry. Not one. Let the Arab League or Africa deal with it.

[WheelWalker]

23. I was thinking maybe Egypt and the Sauds; but I'm reading

Qatar & United Emirates? We'll fly the AWACs, probably?

[BenzoDia]

24. I agree, not one dollar should be spent either,

Well realistically, not "too many" dollars. We have shit here we need to pay for.

[ButterflyBlood]

27. Not one American life was lost in Kosovo

probably the most comparable example. Or in Iraq pre-2003 enforcing the no-fly zones there until Bush fucked everything up.

[GSLevel9]

37. but if a ward full of premature babies

get taken out by a cruise missile .00001% off course that's cool, right? What's wrong with all of you getting a fucking hard-on waiting for "Shock n' Awe?"

[ButterflyBlood]

42. Strawman not really worth replying to

Please point me to where someone has come out in favor of a "shock and awe" type action. "Shock and awe" by the way did not consist of targeted strikes against military targets needing to be disabled to enforce a no fly zone.

[readmoreoften]

26. Wait! I thought it was just a "no-fly zone". Now we're supporting airstrikes.

[GSLevel9]

33. no-fly zone is implemented by

knocking out the "eyes and ears" of the enemy. That means missile and bomb launches on "command and communication" facilities (which are usually located near daycare centers and hospitals)

You can't enforce a NFZ if the enemy has AA emplacements and radar capacity.

[meow mix]

28. good i hope they are pounding that fucker right now

go rebels

[readmoreoften]

30. And also pounding the rebels! Don't forget!

[meow mix]

34. you fucking think theyd rather have thier limbs hacked off or hung by ben?

you people are sad. give em a fucking chance

[GSLevel9]

35. honest question...

Please give honest and accurate answers.

1) Who ARE the rebels? What if they're supported by a terrorist group(s)?

2) How many AMERICAN LIVES are expendable to drive Gadafi from power? ONE? TWELVE? FORTY-SEVEN?

3) How many US TAXPAYER dollars are expendable? 10 MILLION? 100 MILLION? How much?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GSLevel9]

38. couldn't answer the question, could ya?

[BenzoDia]

41. al-Qaeda and the Taliban are some murdering types too.

Going after them blew up in our face.

[joshcryer]

39. The rebels are various Libyan tribes who are tired of Gaddafi and the massacre of innocent protester

...was the final straw.

It includes civilians and military and police alike.

[joshcryer]

40. There has already been one American citizen killed by Gaddafi's regime.