44 replies to this topic

[Ion Cannon!]

The UN resolution also has a component stating the protection of civilians in Libya, It's more than just establishing a no fly zone. While the Arab League says it's to far, alot of the civilians say it's not enough. Also, theres sick irony in Iran welcoming the revolts. I hope the people of Iran rise up again sometime soon and take down the whole stupid regime.

This level of widespread unrest does seem to be spreading though, I have to wonder when it will stop, and after it goes, what will the political landscape be in the middle east / N Africa.

[CJ]

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 12:26, said:

 CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 21:53, said:

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 8:25, said:

 CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 9:54, said:

Also, the US has practically nothing to do with this operation, if anything it should be France which should get most of the credits for once.

The attack is led by the UK, France and the US.

Oh come one, you know that Sarkozy was the one who was pushing all countries in the EU and urging them to do something... He might have done that in the sole hope of regaining some

That's besides the point. You were claiming the US was doing nothing. The US (currently) has a larger deployment than France does.
Sarkozy wasn't doing anything more than Cameron was. They were both very vocal proponents of it, as was our foreign minister (and ex-prime minister) Kevin Rudd.

Yeah, I admit that what I said was a bit disproportioned, but I was just pissed off at how the US media makes it sound like US is the country who started it all, while they're only providing help for the military attack and didn't do much to speed up the UN resolution.

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 12:26, said:

For the aid, read the report I posted above. The heading is "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Unrest and Neighbouring Countries (Egypt, Niger and Tunisia) - February 2011". Last time I checked February wasn't March. The figures are the March count for the February donations (it takes a while to process that much money).

Quote

Table B: Total Humanitarian Assistance per Donor (Appeal plus other*)
as of 22-March-2011

What's the difference between 28th February and first March? For all I know that report could've been about donations made on the last day of February.
All I know is that we haven't seen any form of money before a day, and the only reason why we were able to keep up with the flow of refugees is because every family here immediately donated to help them.

And my point is that you were calling us less civilized, yet I'm sure if this were to happen in Europe, there is no proof that the citizens of the developed countries would be as supportive as Tunisians were (and still are), and if they were to be, that would be a proof that we aren't as uncivilized as you seem to think.

[Raven]

The latest reports give the impression that it was due to a mechanical fault. The 2nd crewman was rescued by Rebels and handed over to US.

[Ion Cannon!]

 CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 14:12, said:

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 12:26, said:

 CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 21:53, said:

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 8:25, said:

 CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 9:54, said:

Also, the US has practically nothing to do with this operation, if anything it should be France which should get most of the credits for once.

The attack is led by the UK, France and the US.

Oh come one, you know that Sarkozy was the one who was pushing all countries in the EU and urging them to do something... He might have done that in the sole hope of regaining some

That's besides the point. You were claiming the US was doing nothing. The US (currently) has a larger deployment than France does.
Sarkozy wasn't doing anything more than Cameron was. They were both very vocal proponents of it, as was our foreign minister (and ex-prime minister) Kevin Rudd.

Yeah, I admit that what I said was a bit disproportioned, but I was just pissed off at how the US media makes it sound like US is the country who started it all, while they're only providing help for the military attack and didn't do much to speed up the UN resolution.

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 12:26, said:

For the aid, read the report I posted above. The heading is "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Unrest and Neighbouring Countries (Egypt, Niger and Tunisia) - February 2011". Last time I checked February wasn't March. The figures are the March count for the February donations (it takes a while to process that much money).

Quote

Table B: Total Humanitarian Assistance per Donor (Appeal plus other*)
as of 22-March-2011

What's the difference between 28th February and first March? For all I know that report could've been about donations made on the last day of February.
All I know is that we haven't seen any form of money before a day, and the only reason why we were able to keep up with the flow of refugees is because every family here immediately donated to help them.

And my point is that you were calling us less civilized, yet I'm sure if this were to happen in Europe, there is no proof that the citizens of the developed countries would be as supportive as Tunisians were (and still are), and if they were to be, that would be a proof that we aren't as uncivilized as you seem to think.

Going a bit off topic here aren't we? That said, you really think we would let our countrymen/women suffer and not help them? Of course Tunisia can give aid / help quicker, the event in question happened in Tunisia. To get any aid over to Tunisia we have to either fly or ship it over. Oh and FYI, while the UK is cutting most sections of its public finances international development/aid is being increased. Now can we please stop with the "we're more developed / civilised than you " bollocks.

Which US media source are you talking about exactly? If it's FOX, well thats not even fucking news. I can't speak for the US networks, but the channels here are giving most of the credit to the UK and France. In all honesty I bet Obama wants as little to do with it as possible.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 22 March 2011 - 14:49.

[CJ]

 Ion Cannon!, on 22 Mar 2011, 15:48, said:

Which US media source are you talking about exactly? If it's FOX, well thats not even fucking news. I can't speak for the US networks, but the channels here are giving most of the credit to the UK and France. In all honesty I bet Obama wants as little to do with it as possible.

Let's start by the source in the first post of this thread for instance, that's what pissed me off here. Not talking about European sources ofc, those are all reporting the information correctly, it's just that US news websites tend to conveniently forget that there are other countries involved in this, but as you said, US news aren't really news in most cases.

[Ion Cannon!]

 CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 14:55, said:

 Ion Cannon!, on 22 Mar 2011, 15:48, said:

Which US media source are you talking about exactly? If it's FOX, well thats not even fucking news. I can't speak for the US networks, but the channels here are giving most of the credit to the UK and France. In all honesty I bet Obama wants as little to do with it as possible.

Let's start by the source in the first post of this thread for instance, that's what pissed me off here. Not talking about European sources ofc, those are all reporting the information correctly, it's just that US news websites tend to conveniently forget that there are other countries involved in this, but as you said, US news aren't really news in most cases.

I can understand that, having read the initial source I agree with you. But thats just the US media, it's frankly completely shit, and I think most intelligent americans would probably agree with me. It's another whole topic but I can touch on it here. If the BBC misrepresents something, a report contains an error or gets a few complaints, they have to apologise and sometimes launch an investigation into it. In the US the media reports outright lies, twists the truth and creates things which aren't there, I find it crazy nobody seems to hold them accountable. Though on the other hand the BBC constantly having to apologise for offending this that and the other is to much.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 22 March 2011 - 15:04.

[Nid]

 Ion Cannon!, on 22 Mar 2011, 14:48, said:

In all honesty I bet Obama wants as little to do with it as possible.

It's probably a smart move. Judging by one response I saw in a similar thread at SWR, a member living in Serbia was showing support for Gadaffi and then linking to this. 36,000 serbians on facebook apparently want American blood according to the accusations utter bollocks the same member was later spouting in the same thread.

I think the less the US has military involvements with Muslim nations for now the better, the US apparently seems to be getting quite a reputation for interfering when not wanted.



On a slightly different note:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-12816226

What I don't understand is what an F-15 was doing over Libyan airspace when the US, or any country for that matter doesn't appear to be contributing them to airstrikes:

Downed F-15 article on BBC said:

Coalition forces

• US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
  
• France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
  
• UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
  
• Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
  
• Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
  
• Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
  
• Denmark: F-16 aircraft
  
• Belgium: F-16 aircraft

Edited by Nidmeister, 22 March 2011 - 16:08.

[Ion Cannon!]

Serbia is a country of 7 million people, theres bound to be 36000 ignorant wack jobs there. I think Obama is being smart though, he doesn't want to turn this into Iraq V2. And neither does anyone else. The difference with the interference here is that it's not even US led and the Arab League backs it, the only thing making people believe its US led is some of the media. Props to hunter for shutting down that idiotic member.

[Raven]

@Nidmeister, This particular version is the F-15 strike eagle, modified with ground attack capabilities. So I assume that they were carrying out ground attacks.

[Nid]

I know what they do, my point was that no nation on that list was contributing them to my knowledge, I did however find out after that the US was deploying F-15s from airbases in England, so I got my question answered a while ago.

[Alias]

 CJ, on 23 Mar 2011, 1:12, said:

 Alias, on 22 Mar 2011, 12:26, said:

For the aid, read the report I posted above. The heading is "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Unrest and Neighbouring Countries (Egypt, Niger and Tunisia) - February 2011". Last time I checked February wasn't March. The figures are the March count for the February donations (it takes a while to process that much money).

Quote

Table B: Total Humanitarian Assistance per Donor (Appeal plus other*)
as of 22-March-2011

What's the difference between 28th February and first March? For all I know that report could've been about donations made on the last day of February.
All I know is that we haven't seen any form of money before a day, and the only reason why we were able to keep up with the flow of refugees is because every family here immediately donated to help them.

As I said, it's the March count for the February donations, it would be rather odd for the entirety of the February donations to be donated in a day simultaneously from every country, right? Of course the majority of them will usually be on the first day the appeal is put up, but there's still going to be a constant flow after that.
You're grossly mistaken (and completely ungrateful) if you think 200 million dollars can go from A to B in a day (just like it's completely ridiculous to think you can fly out 90000 people in a day on non-commercial flights). If it's within your country of course it's going to be faster than international donations from 50+ countries.

How about you be grateful we're actually helping and not ignoring like what (disgustingly) happens in some other places in Africa.
(by the way, in the meantime while the US plans to reduce its annual foreign aid, everyone else is increasing it)

Edited by Alias, 22 March 2011 - 20:16.

[BeefJeRKy]

 Nidmeister, on 22 Mar 2011, 18:07, said:

 Ion Cannon!, on 22 Mar 2011, 14:48, said:

In all honesty I bet Obama wants as little to do with it as possible.

It's probably a smart move. Judging by one response I saw in a similar thread at SWR, a member living in Serbia was showing support for Gadaffi and then linking to this. 36,000 serbians on facebook apparently want American blood according to the accusations utter bollocks the same member was later spouting in the same thread.

I think the less the US has military involvements with Muslim nations for now the better, the US apparently seems to be getting quite a reputation for interfering when not wanted.

Wow I couldn't stand reading many of the posts in that thread.

[Sgt. Nuker]

 Nidmeister, on 22 Mar 2011, 12:07, said:

What I don't understand is what an F-15 was doing over Libyan airspace when the US, or any country for that matter doesn't appear to be contributing them to airstrikes:

Downed F-15 article on BBC said:

Coalition forces

• US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier strike aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
  
• France: Rafale and Mirage strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
  
• UK: Typhoon and Tornado strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
  
• Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
  
• Canada: CF-18 strike aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
  
• Spain: F-18 strike aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
  
• Denmark: F-16 aircraft
  
• Belgium: F-16 aircraft

Perhaps there are details that the military of each contributing nation isn't telling (or will never tell) the media.

[Kris]

-------

Edited by Kris, 27 February 2017 - 09:20.

[Raven]

Even though not mentioned, I am sure Special Forces are deployed inside Libya to help the rebels and scout for high value targets.

[Sgt. Nuker]

To go along with that, I would not be at all surprised if there were mercenaries in Libya making a "quick buck". Every war has guns for hire nowadays it seems.

[CJ]

 Raven, on 23 Mar 2011, 3:35, said:

Even though not mentioned, I am sure Special Forces are deployed inside Libya to help the rebels and scout for high value targets.

There are at least some in Benghazi, and that was actually mentioned in the news, it's just that they're hiding this kind of informations because they know Arabs can be retards sometimes and start their massive "US is invading Libya for it's oil", heck I even heard some people who were saying that the revolution in Tunisia was organized by some Jewish sect so that they can put one of them as our president and then invade us to get our (non-existent) resources. So yeah, retards.

 Sgt. Nuker, on 23 Mar 2011, 5:02, said:

To go along with that, I would not be at all surprised if there were mercenaries in Libya making a "quick buck". Every war has guns for hire nowadays it seems.

There were mercenaries since the beginning of the protests. Gaddafi hired Ben Ali's mercenaries after their fled Tunisia, as well as a bunch of Sub-Saharan guys. And not to forget the Touareg who do hold a grudge against Arabs since 500...

[Nid]

 Sgt. Nuker, on 23 Mar 2011, 4:02, said:

To go along with that, I would not be at all surprised if there were mercenaries in Libya making a "quick buck". Every war has guns for hire nowadays it seems.

There was an interview with a member of the rebel forces on BBC somewhere, I'm afraid I've lost the link, but he was saying that Gadaffi had snipers positioned on rooftops all over Misurata. The rebel said they had captured some of them, and they were algerian I think? It seem that the rebels wouldn't be the only ones hiring guns.

[BeefJeRKy]

 Sgt. Nuker, on 23 Mar 2011, 6:02, said:

To go along with that, I would not be at all surprised if there were mercenaries in Libya making a "quick buck". Every war has guns for hire nowadays it seems.

Lots of mercenaries were shipped from Mali & Niger and being paid anywhere between 5 & 10 thousand US dollars cash by Gaddafi and most don't even speak Arabic. There were even posters over there apparently.

[Destiny]

 Nidmeister, on 23 Mar 2011, 20:21, said:

 Sgt. Nuker, on 23 Mar 2011, 4:02, said:

To go along with that, I would not be at all surprised if there were mercenaries in Libya making a "quick buck". Every war has guns for hire nowadays it seems.

There was an interview with a member of the rebel forces on BBC somewhere, I'm afraid I've lost the link, but he was saying that Gadaffi had snipers positioned on rooftops all over Misurata. The rebel said they had captured some of them, and they were algerian I think? It seem that the rebels wouldn't be the only ones hiring guns.

I wouldn't trust Blackwater going there at all, not that they would be hired by any of the Coalition forces...the US solidified it's intention not to put any ground forces in Libya. I wonder if mercs count.