billo Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Also the Arab league welcomed and agreed to the invovlment of the UN but now they are up in arms about the bombing. I am watching it on Sky news now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Any involvement in the middle east is a no win situation. Once the no fly zone has been achieved then pull out and let the Arabs send in troops if they want to. There was no UN mandate to follow up with a ground force invasion anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoni_mouse Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I can understand why there is now a no fly zone in force so that planes cannot be used to bomb their own people but why are the fighters patrolling the area attacking targets on the ground and what has the use of missiles to hit military bases got to do with a no fly zone. It sounds to me like they could be softening them up for a ground invasion which the yanks and the UK said is not going to happen. Can somebody please explain this to me. The mandate gives the coalition forces the mandate to destroy any targets which can threaten civilians - on the ground or in the air. The term 'No Fly Zone' is a bit of a misnomer in that respect. The majority of targets hit so far have been to degrade the Libyan air defence system - radar, AAA, SAM sites etc. to allow the coalition aircraft to enforce the 'No Fly Zone'. As to a ground invasion, I doubt it's on the cards however my real concern at the minute is that there is no real plan as to what we will do once the bombing has accomplished its initial aims. I hope i'm wrong though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Also the Arab league welcomed and agreed to the invovlment of the UN but now they are up in arms about the bombing. I am watching it on Sky news now. Yes, but it you watched it on Al Jazeera English, they'd explain why x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Zimabwe has many significant natual resources so I don't buy that argument. The difference being Mugabe didn't threaten to cut off supply. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Syria are at it now. Read Nostradamus he predicted many thing that have come to pass. We must take action to protect ourselves from the results or Arab conflict both at home and abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 We must take action to protect ourselves from the results or Arab conflict both at home and abroad. We tried that in Iraq, didn't we?. Making Israel a little safer by invading her neighbours on her behalf wasn't a very sensible idea. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I can't make my mind up on this ,i supported those doing the uprising and thought it the right thing to do (give them some protection from air attacks ) i thought though it would be a case of air patrols preventig 'Daffis' planes from attacking,to even things up a bit. Seems though "we" have gone way over the top (should've known i know) and have just seized upon an opportunity to blow the hell out of another country , made a bit more profit for the arms industry and probably made a bad situation worse. I can't help but support the underdog so am feeling a bit sorry now for Gaddafi.(i don't for a minute condone his actions) Of course he could just step down and if he's really so sure his people love him ,have a national vote perhaps overseen by the UN and find out what the majority really want ,he does seem to have a large number of supporters. Perhaps he is just fighting "terrorism" and us bully boys have taken advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I can't make my mind up on this ,i supported those doing the uprising and thought it the right thing to do (give them some protection from air attacks ) i thought though it would be a case of air patrols preventig 'Daffis' planes from attacking,to even things up a bit. Seems though "we" have gone way over the top (should've known i know) and have just seized upon an opportunity to blow the hell out of another country , made a bit more profit for the arms industry and probably made a bad situation worse... Where were you going to find the suicide crews who would be tasked to fly combat air patrols over live SAM sites? Most of the targets - according to the news reports - have been Anti-Aircraft sites and CCCI sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Where were you going to find the suicide crews who would be tasked to fly combat air patrols over live SAM sites? Most of the targets - according to the news reports - have been Anti-Aircraft sites and CCCI sites. Fair enough if true. It's the "according to news reports" bit i'm suspicious of. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.