Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

Looks it. Hope the chute works, that's far too close to the ground for comfort.

I can virtually guarantee you that guy bought the farm. The best ejection seats work at zero airspeed, zero altitude. That guy bailed at about 100 meters while lawn-darting directly into the ground. This picture has him all of 50 meters up with his chute strung out but unopened.  Sorry kids. But look on the bright side! It was a loyalist MiG-23BN ground-attack aircraft which was probably on its way to bomb civilians. So... ^$#@ you and the #$^@er who *$#@ing sent you.

I've got to agree wars can't be justified on such abstracted benefits as researching new technology. Wars are extensions of policy by other means, nothing else. Economics take a role in shaping policy, and technology might embolden a nation, but nobody declared war to invent. You might develop a new machine to meet a battlefield need, and that machine might have use outside of the battlefield, but it just as easily could have been discovered otherwise. Defense spending, that is, interwar R&D, is quite different. Arms races are huge boons to technology because both nation is engaging in a sort of war by improving their relative strength in the diplomatic bargaining table. I mean, German battleship development in  the pre-WWI years made huge advances in shipbuilding, rangefinding, and early computing. SDI is how Reagan broke Gorbechov. But this is a sort of economic warfare, not actual warfare, and it lacks the destructive impact of actual military action. So to restate it, wars cannot be justified for tehnological gain. Preparing for war has secondary benefits, and after wars the victor does fairly well for itself, but I can't think of a worse call to arms than "let's give scientists something to think about back home by discovering new ways we can get ourselves killed". I mean, I'm a hawk, but I'm not irrational about it.

[Phmcw]

The jet fighter downed you're speaking of was rebel apparently. Well in this setting friendly fire was to be expected.
Hell, it's hard to avoid even with a modern military leading organized actions.

[GlyphGryph]

The only thing war is good for is getting the population fired up enough to sink that much money into any sort of public R&D. The space race wasn't a war, really, and accomplished much the same thing wars have.

Anyways, of course France is leading the action and got the first shot in. They've been chomping at the bit since this thing started and begging the UN for permission to launch strikes.

[ed boy]

I was reading some online news, and apparently 110 missiles have been fired off by european/american forces, targetting 20 destinations. Unfortunately, it did not say where any of them were headed.

Does anybody know?

[olemars]

Known strategic sam sites (sa-2, sa-3, sa-5), radars and military communication nodes.

Too much information available on the subject here.

[Nikov]

How can you tell it was rebel? As a ground attack aircraft over a rebel city it seems really unlikely, and I read reports saying it was loyalist.

[Zrk2]

Wars are extensions of policy by other means, nothing else.

Clauswitz? I read an interesting book attempting to refute him once. /pointless comment

Anyway, watched CNN all afternoon, lots of talks about who will run what, but simply put, there is no way Obama will land American troops, he wants to distance himself from the Bush administration and their willingness to deploy troops.

[freeformschooler]

Wars are extensions of policy by other means, nothing else.

Anyway, watched CNN all afternoon, lots of talks about who will run what, but simply put, there is no way Obama will land American troops, he wants to distance himself from the Bush administration and their willingness to deploy troops.

I don't put it past the current administration to do basically anything. Anyway, regardless, I was hoping to see the US not get this much involved but I'm glad they did take action as the results otherwise might have been less pretty.

[SalmonGod]

Anyway, watched CNN all afternoon, lots of talks about who will run what, but simply put, there is no way Obama will land American troops, he wants to distance himself from the Bush administration and their willingness to deploy troops.

...

Isn't it too late for that?  Wasn't announcing troop surges in Afghanistan one of the first things he did?  Wouldn't the best thing he could do for his image at this point be to follow up on the clearest cut opportunity to show consistency in his stated goals that he could have possibly hoped for?

Not that I think the U.S. should send ground troops.  I just don't understand the logic.

[Zrk2]

But no one made a big deal about the troops surges, this is big coverage, he would take more flak for starting another 'engagement', he can claim he was just finishing what they started with the troop surges.

[Phmcw]

How can you tell it was rebel? As a ground attack aircraft over a rebel city it seems really unlikely, and I read reports saying it was loyalist.

#

#
Timestamp:
11:11am
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the Libyan Interim Council, tells Al Jazeera that residential areas in Benghazi are under attack by artillery and tanks. He also said that the plane shot down belongs to the rebels.


Tunisia won't take part in the intervention. I don't know what it means.
But that may not be good. Kadhafi is insane but he's a smooth talker ; reminding of colonialism and having his women way more veiled than the opposition's he could appeal to the Islamists . Oh and he's calling nato intervention a crusade, nice touch. I'm not expecting it to work in Libya, but it may work elsewhere.
He got China and Chavez on his side, and I haven't heard of Castro but I expect him to follow Chavez (after all, Kadhafi is supposed to be "the glorious people's revolution's leader", cruse on him for having us making a debate on how to call the poeple revolting against him)
It's time to be extra cautious in our PR and in our actions.

I expected Belgian involvement, but I'm not sure someone even have the authority to send the army right now. Stupids politicians.

[Nikov]

Curiously the need for US ground troops is more now than it was when loyalists first started their counterattack. Consider; rebels controlled the country at large with popular support and captured heavy weapons. Loyalist counterattacked with heavy assets, pushing them back across the desert and destroying or recapturing those heavy weapons while killing scores of rebel fighters. Now with their manpower depleted and their heavy weapons abandoned or destroyed, retaking the country is going to be a much more daunting challenge.

However, if the world community acted during the first days of the counter attack, loyalist tanks exposed in the desert during their offensive would have been popped like beer cans on a rifle range by attack aircraft. Once loyalist armor was destroyed or disorganized, the rebels could have finished off what was left in infantry fighting inside the cities. Rebels win the day, have some token gratitude to the international community, all airstrikes could have been made in the open desert on easily identified enemy tanks to minimize collateral and fratricide, and we bicker about evil western imperialism in Libya. Oh, and did I mention that guy in the ejection seat would be alive today, along with a few thousand other Libyans?

Needless to say I am disappointed. I think it is very unlikely US troops will be hitting the beach in a combat role, save in the most wild of hypotheticals, given our current level of dithering. The last time we were here was the Barbary Pirates, curiously enough. IIRC US troops didn't go to the 'eastern front' of North Africa. Could be wrong.

And yes, Clausewitz. What was the book that "tried" to refute him?

[Phmcw]

It's seems that Belgium's F16 will be involved after all : our parliament approved it without any opposition. Tremble Kadhafi. 

Edit: Yeah, he is now playing the good muslim Gambit. #

File 16686
#
Timestamp:
11:49am

Gaddafi spoke for about 15 minutes, a comparatively short address by his standards. During his remarks, Libyan state TV showed a static image of monument at the Bab al-Azizia - a  giant gold fist crushing a fighter jet with "USA" written on the tail. Gaddafi was never shown, perhaps out of fear that he would reveal his location and expose himself to a coalition attack.

The Libyan leader was characteristically pugnacious, promising an endless war against the "Christian" enemy - France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and others.

"There is no justification for this cold war against Islam," he said.

Gaddafi also pointed to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq as well as US military efforts against Osama bin Laden and armed militias in Somalia as examples of the fate that awaits foreign military intervention in his country.

[olemars]

I found the perfect woman for EpicLibyanMan:


Hope he's still alive.

[Phmcw]

"We are not afraid of your rockets or your air raids. We do not fear you. You were defeated in Somalia, in Lebanon, in Iraq. You were beaten by bin Laden. We will defend our honour, our families, our homeland. We are ready for a long war." From Kadhafi (source Guardian)

Hmmm ok but didn't he just said yesterday the protesters were led by Ben Laden, who drugged them in order to make them obedient?