NEWS: Coalition launches Libya attacks

It appears that the rebels have advanced at a rapid rate, and are now approaching Sirte, Gaddafi's last bastion before Tripoli itself. Things may be nearing an end sooner than anticipated as Gaddafi's forces are in full retreat...perhaps downgraded to a month or so?

Thomas1134 wrote:It appears that the rebels have advanced at a rapid rate, and are now approaching Sirte, Gaddafi's last bastion before Tripoli itself. Things may be nearing an end sooner than anticipated as Gaddafi's forces are in full retreat...perhaps downgraded to a month or so?

The sooner the better. Hopefully under pressure and the realization that Gaddafi is screwed, his military will stop backing him and leave.

I remember something similar being said in 2003 when they toppled the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. I also remember W. announcing the end of the war in May of that year. I also seem to remember they still hadn't found Saddam and they were still losing soldiers to "enemy" fire. Although it would be nice for it to end sooner rather than later, just don't go expecting it

Vektrix wrote:I remember something similar being said in 2003 when they toppled the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. I also remember W. announcing the end of the war in May of that year. I also seem to remember they still hadn't found Saddam and they were still losing soldiers to "enemy" fire. Although it would be nice for it to end sooner rather than later, just don't go expecting it

Can only hope that it doesn't become another Iraq situation. Unlike what they've done in Iraq, just get in, get rid of Gaddafi, then get out or at maximum until an election is held for a new leader. Hopefully seeing as America technically isn't running the show, they won't keep troops in years more than they should be.

Vektrix wrote:I remember something similar being said in 2003 when they toppled the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. I also remember W. announcing the end of the war in May of that year. I also seem to remember they still hadn't found Saddam and they were still losing soldiers to "enemy" fire. Although it would be nice for it to end sooner rather than later, just don't go expecting it

That was actually the American press's fault.

They took a minor incident in which only a few participated, zoomed in the camera, and made it look like a revolution. And when some reporters stood up and said "Wait a second. This is wrong." their bosses said "Nevermind that, this is good press!"

The Pentagon took it the wrong way and thought the war was nearly over, they started to get sloppy, forgot they had no long-term plan, and hell you guys know the rest.

I value Freedom of the Press as much as any American, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. The Press jumped back and forth over that line several times.

Thankfully, this won't happen again in Libya. The US is not deploying any troops -in fact, I think most of the coalition's efforts involve airstrikes anyways- and at the moment our role is strictly setting up a naval blockade.

The American press should not have that power of your president. Mind you, W. came across as unintelligent, and as far as I can tell, your press, and a lot of the American public did not like him - how he got two terms is beyond me, and pretty much the entire rest fof the world as far as I can tell.

On a serious point about it though, seems the rebels are over-stretching themselves. I saw a report uyesterday on the BBC where the journalist suggested all Gaddafi need do is counter-attack and the rebels will be pushed back. Now, I am sure Gaddafi has some intelligent people loyal to him who would have suggested that already, but my only thought was "Oh yes, that's right, tell Gaddafi the rebels' weakness."

I think this may go longer than people think it will, purely because it seems that neither side will budge, and both sides will over-stretch themselves. It may take more positive involvement from the UN and NATO.

And on NATO, why did the Americans push for NATO control? They are a member of NATO as well. All NATO member nations are in the UN and handing over to NATO will not change the personnel involved, or even where the planes can be based. The strikes were already taking palce from NATO bases and from Aircraft Carriers. Oh, and why use Aircraft Carriers? Is the Mediterranean really that wide?

The Mediterranean is pretty wide. And let's be honest: US Aircraft Carriers are the most potent fighting machine on the planet, and I say that modestly. The rebellion is never going to spill into the Mediterranean because holy God nobody wants to go near our ships. Not only are they the best battleships in the world, but they also carry their own air divisions... which consist of the best aircraft in the world.

W. is a wonderful and kind-hearted man, but as a leader... Well, you put it much more nicely than even his own people would. W. is responsible for much of the recent negative sentiment towards the US. We're no evil empire, but I completely understand why people would think that because his administration wielded the US like one.

As for the power of the Press... Well, in a country that holds the freedom of speech as one of the most vital of freedoms, he who makes money off of the news is King. The Press has far more power than they realize, and I hope is stays that way- That they never realize that power, I mean. I'm demonizing it a bit too much, though. It's only a few groups that pose much of a problem. But still... What I said about the Iraq War is absolutely true. Freedom of the Press is vital, but sometimes it needs to be kept in check.

Now, pushing for NATO... This is one of two things. One, the US is openly supporting the coalition but doesn't want to risk getting involved in another war and as such has decided to take a more supportive role. Two... It's just a clever way of tricking the masses into thinking the US is not involved, so that the US can pursue its own interests behind the guise of NATO. But I doubt it. Either way, the US is pretty much not involved in Libya. We went in, blew up some of Gadaffi's junk, got out, and now we're straddling the Mediterranean. And hopefully for the reasons Obama stated yesterday.

Some of the airbases being used are in Cyprus and Sicily, the aircraft being used could fly to Libya and back at least 3 times from those places. I just think using Aircraft Carriers seems a bit superfluous to me. I use them a loot in Civilization games, and if I have anywhere in Europe I tend not to use them in that theater. I know that is a game, but the principle is the same.

Hmmm.... Libya is not as contentious as Iraq, so why the indecision? Iraq did not have UN backing, this does. The US has effectively been given permission to intervene, so why doesn't it want to now? It is the first time in a while that countries other than Israel and the UK have agreed with them. It just seems like American Foreign Policy has changed completely. Now, I know W. viewed foreign policy as key, and Obama wants to run the US as opposed to the world, but still, it does seem odd.

Well, a floating fortress capable of leveling a city and launching massive airborne raids is a hell of a lot more terrifying than an airbase. And the whole point is to prevent Gadaffi from arming his troops with weapons and mercenaries brought in from the Mediterranean.

As for the change in US policy... Well, nobody in this country that isn't insane or outright evil wants another costly war on their hands. It's more or less an effort to avoid making the same mistakes, and so far it's working.

Besides, the coalition is doing quite well without us. For all the talk, Gadaffi is quickly running out of options.

Gaddafi's doomed - that much is clear. It is now simply a questiion of how long. I give it 1-2 months.

The whole crisis would be over so much quicker if the rebels were more organised, the main advantages the Gaddafi troops have are tactics and organisation. The rebels want arms and training, but our main worry is; are there Al Qaeda operatives in the rebel's ranks? The US have been talking about picking up some chatter...

I haven't been following the libya situation as much in the last two weeks. I keep hearing about rebels supposabley sexually assaulting women? something about a reporter who got sexually assaulted by rebels.

If thats true, he rebels really aren't making themselves look particularly good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13074189

Just keeps rumbling on and on and on. I expect this will turn into an Afghanistan and Iraq, seriously, it will.

I had no issue with going into Afghanistan, afterall, the reaosn was made clear... we are looking for Osama, and "freeing" the nation from the grip of the Taliban. Well, Osama has been in Pakistan for 8 years now, but the Taliban are still there, so continued presence is, under the original remit, still valid.

Iraq I COMPLETELY disagreed with, we went in look for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That was preposterous since WE (UK/US/Germany) sold those same weapons to Iraq, and KNEW that Saddam had used them. The Russians also sold them to Iraq, but we also saw them use them on the Kurds... had we gone in on the pretense of taking out Saddam, pretty much all the opposition would have dissipated.

With Libya, our pretense is currently sound, however, the rebels themselves are not. They are disorganised and over-stretching themselves. We need to go after Gaddafi, and be open about it, I'd support that move and I guess many others would.

fine words Vek the problem is the last leader we went after has become a marter If we make one here 2 in 10-30 years we will be facing the true side of history and that is that any contery we go to war with we are 99.9% responcable for the result look at it this way we took inda lovely place screwd it over and now look at it Iraq well thats a thing we shouldnt have done 2 time not mention once if we go after this goyt then consider the result heck 2 some not me Htler is a hero and marter sickening fact all il say is dont vote BMP (and sory for mentioning the war)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13089758

Well, it seems that Gaddafi now HAS to be the target. The Coalition has declared Gaddafi future unthinkable (word I hate, since saying it makes it thinkable, and even thought ). Gaddafi is not gonna step down voluntarily, no matter what you do.

no suprises there then

I don't understand why Gaddafi continues. There is no possibility for him to remain in power, atleast without his life constantly being under threat. Even the Saudis have declared that they do not support him.

LordRemington wrote:I don't understand why Gaddafi continues. There is no possibility for him to remain in power, atleast without his life constantly being under threat. Even the Saudis have declared that they do not support him.

Seriously? I think Gaddafi has some sort of Personality Disorder, one that includes an inability to understand that he is not the centre of the known universe. I don't think he understands the impact of his ideas and policies on the people he is supposedly leading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

Apparently one of Gadaffi's son has been killed

Vek, I know this may not be the place to discuss it. But, the sporum needs some cleaning. We had a massive spam attack a few hours ago. I sent you a PM on the Sporum about it.

Next time should a thing occur, use the "Bomb Shelter" or EuroSpore PM's Also he's away from home atm, so he may not be able to clean up.

I have to say that it's only a matter of time (a short matter) before Gaddafi gets hit by a bullet or a blast, seeing as the people around him are dropping like flies.

Trickatel wrote:Next time should a thing occur, use the "Bomb Shelter" or EuroSpore PM's Also he's away from home atm, so he may not be able to clean up.

I have to say that it's only a matter of time (a short matter) before Gaddafi gets hit by a bullet or a blast, seeing as the people around him are dropping like flies.

Oh sorry, I am still getting used to EuroSpore, thanks for telling me

No problem, just keep it in mind

The reality is, someone very close to Gaddaffi just betrayed him big time...how else would NATO know exactly where to strike?