U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces

[Patroklos]

The fact that post is filled with insults instead of an objective measure of your own tells us all we need to know about your failure to rebut by simple obervation.

 

[Patroklos]

Post-9/11 ground invasion shouldn't take much in coalition building skills

Which would/did costs more money and lives, a land invasion or an air invasion? Which is more of an effort for Europeans to involve themselves in, a war in North Africa or Central Asia?

You can quibble all day long (and you will), but you have yet to provide anything that makes the current coalition special relative to previous ones mentioned.

Iraq ground invasion is interesting given some major missing countries and the fluffing of the list with bit players.

Which major country in this coalition is missing from ISAF?

Again, every time you call a nation "fluff" while championing the existance of coalitions in the first place defeats your arguement.

In any case I guess Italy, Japan, Turkey, Spain and the UK are not major enough for you, but you should remember the members of the ISAF and MNFI make up the majoirty of the current coaltion as well.

So far Libya is just an air show and Obama didn't need Micronesia and the married couple from Iceland since he was getting Germany, France, and even the United Arab Emirates.

Germany, France and the UAE are in ISAF, you lose. And are you saying the contributions of the soverign state of Micronesia, a peer amoungst the international community, are unimportant?

 

[BSmith1068]

The fact that post is filled with insults instead of an objective measure of your own tells us all we need to know about your failure to rebut by simple obervation.

Oh the irony!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The fact that post is filled with insults instead of an objective measure of your own tells us all we need to know about your failure to rebut by simple obervation.

First, I did not intent to insult you but your argument. Just to clarify that.
Secondly - dude! Operation Oddessy Dawn is utmost different in virtually every aspect to Afghanistan or the Iraq. Which means that a ton of crucial factors which have a bearing on who participates strongly differ. And the overbearing majority is not related to Obama's skills to gain support at all. Additionally, Obama is not even trying to equal the amount of support Bush had, as he is not even remotely as invested in it. As demonstrated by his latest announcement to withdraw American air forces.

What I wrote may have seemed insulting to you because the case is so crystal-clear and I didn't think you could possibly overlook that.

 

[Patroklos]

What did Iceland's 2 soldiers do?

"Iceland had a total of three troops, including two Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts, a medical advisor, and some transport experts assigned to the Danish unit immediately after the occupation began; they have since been withdrawn. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_–_Iraq

Too bad their service doesn't count according to Jolly

 

[Patroklos]

Oh the irony!

You did it wrong. You doing it wrong in this case, however, is ironic.

 

[Camikaze]

"Iceland had a total of three troops, including two Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts, a medical advisor, and some transport experts assigned to the Danish unit immediately after the occupation began; they have since been withdrawn. "

I sense a miscalculation of sorts.

 

[Patroklos]

Secondly - dude! Operation Oddessy Dawn is utmost different in virtually every aspect to Afghanistan or the Iraq.

It is different, but not in ways that matter to the subset of the discussion we are having now.

Which means that a ton of crucial factors which have a bearing on who participates strongly differ.

True in some cases, but not all. This is irrelevant as to who built a broader and more impressive coalition. So far the factors discussed make involvement in this coalition easier than the previous ones mentioned, not harder.

1.) The interests to the coalition members involved are more immeidiate, primarily economic. Not so for Iraq or Afghanistan

2.) This was considered a no brainer decision from the get go, there is very legitimate critisism as to why action was delayed as it is. It doesn't speak to the difficulty of building a coalition when its the obvious choice.

3.) Low risk. There is close to zero risk to the countries involved based on military action. Thus far there has not been a single loss of life.

4.) Ease of access. While it is funny to a certain extent watching a supposed up and coming super power whine about being able to support warplanes over a nation in its immediate sphere of influence within range of home nation airfields (and still only able to do so with US assistance), I don't think anyone will contest that the prospect of intervening in Libya is far more simple than Iraw of Afgahnistan from a logistics prospective.

I would actually like you to point out what part of this coaltion building exercise was harder than Iraq or Afghanistan.

And the overbearing majority is not related to Obama's skills to gain support at all. Additionally, Obama is not even trying to equal the amount of support Bush had, as he is not even remotely as invested in it. As demonstrated by his latest announcement to withdraw American air forces.

This conversation is not predicated on anything Obama said, but on what posters in this thread said. Namely:

1.) That Bush did not consult Congress, which thankfully nobody has tried to support after that.

2.) This current coalition shows how awesome Obama is at organizing coalitions in contrast to Bush.

Reality disagrees with both, as I have shown.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the coalition membership Obama has, it is perfectly fine. I do have a problem with people making up wild Obama fairy tales.

What I wrote may have seemed insulting to you because the case is so crystal-clear and I didn't think you could possibly overlook that.

I don't think thats what you meant to say, but crystal clear or not there is nothing about the current situation that makes Obama some uber coalition builder. It doesn't make him a bad one either.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think Bush even had Libya on board in the war on terror for a while. Why, oh why, didn't O'Bama secure Libya's thumbs up for this one. Why did he freeze Iceland out? Why didn't he put a feather in his hat and call it Micronesia?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I would actually like you to point out what part of this coaltion building exercise was harder than Iraq or Afghanistan.

- No 9/11
- Iraq or Afghanistan failures overshadowing any further extensive military operations
- The US does not gladly carry the major burden of the effort for the entirety of the operation and does not carry the responsibility for success and failure of the intervention - which I think is the biggest obstacle
- No Tony Blair
- No American propaganda campaign before-hand of the operation (which you may feel tempted to attribute to Obama, but that isn't fair as Libya didn't happen because of his own initiative).
- War weariness caused by Iraq and Afghanistan
- Financial crisis stressing budget tightness and domestic concerns

1.) That Bush did not consult Congress, which thankfully nobody has tried to support after that.

2.) This current coalition shows how awesome Obama is at organizing coalitions in contrast to Bush.

Reality disagrees with both, as I have shown.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the coalition membership Obama has, it is perfectly fine. I do have a problem with people making up wild Obama fairy tales.



I don't think thats what you meant to say, but crystal clear or not there is nothing about the current situation that makes Obama some uber coalition builder. It doesn't make him a bad one either.

I admittedly did not take into consideration what you were responding to. That's my bad. And I have (except some nit-picking) nothing to say against what you wrote here.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have to admit that some people are better at coalition building than others. Without really trying all that hard, I have assembled quite a coalition, though I'm pretty sure I haven't secured a poster from Micronesia yet.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It just goes to show that some coalitions are far greater than others. Who needs UN approval when you have such military powerhouses as Iceland, Nicaragua, and Honduras behind you? Of course, they all went home when the mission was accomplished in 2004, as did many others.

 

[West 36]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201142172443133798.html

Libyan rebels 'receiving covert training'
Rebel source tells Al Jazeera about training offered by US and Egyptian special forces in eastern Libya.


US and Egyptian special forces have reportedly been offering covert armed training to rebel fighters in the battle for Libya, Al Jazeera has been told.

An unnamed rebel source related how he had undergone training in military techniques at a "secret facility" in eastern Libya.

He told our correspondent Laurence Lee, reporting from the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi, that he was sent to fire Katyusha rockets but was given a simple, unguided version of the rocket instead.



"He told us that on Thursday night a new shipment of Katyusha rockets had been sent into eastern Libya from Egypt. He didn't say they were sourced from Egypt, but that was their route through," our correspondent said.

"He said these were state-of-the-art, heat-seeking rockets and that they needed to be trained on how to use them, which was one of the things the American and Egyptian special forces were there to do."

The intriguing development has raised several uncomfortable questions, about Egypt's private involvement and what the arms embargo exactly means, said our correspondent.

"There is also the question of whether or not the outside world should arm the rebels, when in fact they [rebels] are already being armed covertly."

Our correspondent added that since the rebels appear to be receiving covert support in terms of weaponry and training, it is not surprising that they are not inclined to criticise NATO openly.

Accidental strike

On Saturday the chief spokesman for the Libyan rebels said at least 13 people had been killed after coalition air strikes hit a convoy by mistake on Friday as fighters claimed victory in the battle for Brega.

"Thirteen dead, seven injured by friendly fire. It was a regrettable occurrence," Abdulhafiz Ghoga told a news conference, calling them "unintentional deaths".


Rebels said Friday's NATO raid that killed at least 13 people was "collateral damage" [Reuters]
"The leadership is working on preventing a re-occurrence," he said, adding that Brega "is fully under the control of the rebels".

Brega has been the scene of intense exchanges over the past few days when pro-Gaddafi forces returned after being driven out by rebel forces.

But it has been unclear since Thursday who actually held the town, with anti-Gaddafi forces regrouping in Ajdabiya, about 80km the east.

Earlier, a civilian rebel official said the dead civilians were an ambulance driver and three medical students from Libya's second city of Benghazi.

They had been part of a rebel convoy of five or six vehicles, said Issa Khamis, liaison officer for the rebels' transitional government in the town of Ajdabiya, east of Brega.

Friday's air strike came as rebels shot tracer fire into the air to celebrate the entry of an advance column into Brega.

"It was a mistake" by the rebels, Khamis said. "The aircraft thought they were coming under attack and fired on the convoy."

NATO concerns

A spokeswoman for NATO, which leads the international coalition enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya and protecting civilians from attack, said the bloc was checking.

"We are looking into these reports. We are always concerned by reports of civilian casualties. NATO's mission is to protect civilians and civilian areas from the threat of attack," said Oana Lungescu, adding that no formal investigation has been launched.

Speaking to Al Jazeera earlier, Mustafa Gheriani, a Transitional National Council spokesman, said the loss of lives on Friday was very much regretted.

"However, we understand that collateral damage may also take place and we do accept it, because we look at the big picture which saving more lives.

"So a few people being victims of circumstances or of being at the wrong time or the wrong place it is more or less very bad luck," Gheriani said.

The Libyan government, meanwhile, has produced a video said to show civilians, including women and children, in a Brega hospital. They are believed to have been wounded as they tried to escape the air strikes.

Doctors say more than 240 people have been killed and over 1,000 wounded in Misurata in the last month alone, as a counter-offensive by Gaddafi's troops raised the number of casualties.

On Saturday, the first three Swedish fighter jets landed in Italy as the Nordic country joins the NATO-led no-fly zone operation over Libya.

Five more will leave for the mission on Sunday, Rickard Wissman, an air force spokesman, said.

Wissman said the JAS 39 Gripen planes arrived at the base in Sicily after leaving from their base in Blekinge in southern Sweden earlier on Saturday.

The pilots were initially instructed to fly to Sardinia, but were informed by NATO after take-off that the destination had been moved to the Sigonella base on Sicily in Italy.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201142172443133798.html

 

[innonimatu]

What, are we supposed to believe that NATO mistook a civilian convoy for a convoy of AA guns?

The libyans should't be surprised. The "humanitarian bombing" of Kosovo also hit the albanian refugees fleeing the war there started by NATO...

Hey, check the latest propaganda release:

Opposition Leader: Libyans Will Pay 'Ultimate Price' for Freedom

The leader of the main opposition Libyan National Movement says embattled leader Moammar Gadhafi is fully aware that ordinary Libyans will pay the “ultimate price” to achieve the objective of the revolution, which he says is about embracing democracy.

Mufta Lamloom says Gadhafi has denied Libyans the “full” democracy they have wanted over the past four decades.
[...]
“A week after the fall of the Gadhafi regime, the Transitional Council will call for a general national conference in Tripoli with representatives from the cities if Libya according to their populations. From the conference, people will be elected…and will form an interim government to run state affairs for one year and then prepare a constitution, which will be put forward for a referendum,” Lamloom says.
[...]
NATO said it is investigating a coalition air strike near Brega Friday that claimed the lives of 13 rebel soldiers. The head of the TNC called the bombing an unfortunate mistake, apparently the result of someone in the group firing an anti-aircraft gun into the air.

So, according to the "leader of the rebels, the libyan people is fair game for cannon fodder and "collateral damage", all for the sake of "full democracy" which will, no doubt, flourish in the libyan deserts within one year! With leaders like these, who needs a Qaddafi to get massacred? The whole thing might be over by now, the libian army boing nothing more to Benghazi than it had done in previous rebellions (killing some ringleaders). Instead the libyans can now take their pick between the frying pan and the fire, courtesy of NATO and the UN. But hey, they're "free"!

And NATO mistakenly bombed rebels firing an AA gun - who cares about UN resolutions, the no-flu zone clearly is only meant to apply to one side, according to NATO. And to include the bombing of defending forces of one side too.

 

[GamezRule]

Considering NATO planes are the only ones in the air, why would the pilots think somebody firing at them was friendly?

 

[Camikaze]

What, are we supposed to believe that NATO mistook a civilian convoy for a convoy of AA guns?

This statement confuses me. Are we meant to believe that NATO purposefully attacked the rebels, just for the hell of it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Considering NATO planes are the only ones in the air, why would the pilots think somebody firing at them was friendly?

NATO planes in Afghanistan made exactly the same blunder when they attacked a wedding party celebrating on the rooftop at night.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Lesson: Don't randomly shoot weapons into the air like a freaking moron.

 

[r16]

another lesson: Coalition pilots should either remember that they are practically immune to rifle fire or the like in current scenarios or they should be first to volunteer the idea to scrap the invulnerability idea . And of course striking the rebels would give them a hint to shut up while the diplomats were in action to get their kinsmen begging .

 

[Bugfatty300]

Immune to rifle fire ? Da mission is to waste da bad guys and if some guys are shooting at you then there is da bad guys . Lesson : Don't go out of your way to look like a bad guy to the heavily armed combat jets flying overhead( i . e . shooting into air)