Libya

[Carol]

what are the people in Croatia saying about Libya?

[ray51]

Probably , IMHO : most decent people in HR are too busy , sorting their own lives , to worry v. much over Libya ?
- Well , except that this results in a few more losses of reasonably well-paid jobs , for Croatian expats and GastArbeiter ?
Here at the local corner-bistro yesterday , in absence of any decent sport on TV , the talk went on , mostly , like :
how many more times will the "West" play this same game
( support a dictator , like Saddam , for own gain , as long as the name of the game stays unchanged ....then : go to war with the same ex-mate ...)
- when are we going to bomb our mates , the Saudis , all in the name of "democracy" , so much of which is observed/ignored in our current allies , like e.g. Qatar , Bahrein , Pakistan , U. A. Emirates...

[mambo]

Indeed, it is always fun to hear Arab countries complain about 'the West' bombing 'innocent' countries and when 'the West' does not do anything..............they are also complaining.

The Arab Liga played it very skillful this time. First they agree with the no-fly zone and the moment the no-fly zone is enforced they state that this is not what they wanted.

My advise would be to let each country, how harsh it may be, sort out their own s.h.i.t. If this means 1 million will be murdere by their own leaders..........so be it.
If the Arab countries do not like this then they are free to take action.
Whatever happens now, you will see that in a few weeks there will be mass protests against the US in combintion with flag burning.

[Carol]

I asked because a week or two ago it reminded me of a complaint I heard many times against the UK in 1990 i.e. "you did not help us".
Well the Libyans are being helped now, but something tells me the Croats would not have wanted this either.

[ray51]

Are you familiar with the HR-term : "nesvrstani" ?
Great claim to fame , by various cleptomaniacs , like Nasser , Tito , Gandhi , Sukarno , Nyerere and any number of others...
Gadafi should belong in that same league , at one stage there were literally dozens and dozens of 3rd world "countries" , blabbing about anti-colonialism and how the West exploited/ruined them all ...
Somehow , my experience dictates that most Croats have some difficulty , in letting go of that Disney fantasy , to this very day , even...

[crojoe]

Mar 21, 2011 10:25:58 GMT 1 mambo said:

Indeed, it is always fun to hear Arab countries complain about 'the West' bombing 'innocent' countries and when 'the West' does not do anything..............they are also complaining.

The Arab Liga played it very skillful this time. First they agree with the no-fly zone and the moment the no-fly zone is enforced they state that this is not what they wanted.

My advise would be to let each country, how harsh it may be, sort out their own s.h.i.t. If this means 1 million will be murdere by their own leaders..........so be it.
If the Arab countries do not like this then they are free to take action.
Whatever happens now, you will see that in a few weeks there will be mass protests against the US in combintion with flag burning.

Or another Iraq, a drawn out war and more bloodshed. It's almost a copy again: first no fly zone, bomb strategic locations and next ground troops? Do I believe Mr "Change can Happen" when he tells us “no ground troops”? No!

Funny enough, last night on TV they aired Lawrence of Arabia, and it was a good representation of war for oil.

[Carol]

Mar 21, 2011 10:25:58 GMT 1 mambo said:

Whatever happens now, you will see that in a few weeks there will be mass protests against the US in combintion with flag burning.

I suspect that the leaders of the other arab countries are thinking that they don't like Gadaffi and would be glad to see him gone. However, that's only a "would like" whereas being able to do whatever it takes to deal with unrest in their own country is an imperative. So, its really amazing they did or said anything at all.

[crojoe]

Mar 21, 2011 15:05:08 GMT 1 Carol said:

Mar 21, 2011 10:25:58 GMT 1 mambo said:

Whatever happens now, you will see that in a few weeks there will be mass protests against the US in combintion with flag burning.

I suspect that the leaders of the other arab countries are thinking that they don't like Gadaffi and would be glad to see him gone. However, that's only a "would like" whereas being able to do whatever it takes to deal with unrest in their own country is an imperative. So, its really amazing they did or said anything at all.

As soon as someone points their middle finger at the West, well, their days seem to be numbered. One interesting note is the moment Gadafie’s son came out on the first day or so accusing Sarkozy of taking their sponsorship / slush political money (and he claimed to have proof), the French are the first country to do a military strike in Libya. Within 24 hours the UN partnership force had dropped over 150 bombs, which means that either their aim is bad or they plan to take someone out.

I just find it one sided the West’s strategy. We have another guy sending in borrowed troops to squelch riots in his country and all he gets is a brief mention and a light "slap on the hand". If we want to talk dictatorship then there are some other "friends" who rule with an iron hand. They put up with nothing and no freedoms allowed. I guess it's a bit like a candy shop over there, some folks can pick and choose who or what they want. Problem is the candy tastes like oil.

[Carol]

i wish Britain would just stay out of other country's quarrels. No one thanks us for them and it all gets paid for by the tax payer. We get the costs but not the benefits, even if the effort is successful in the end, well not since the end of the nineteenth century anyway. (Can anyone tell me I am wrong about this?)

[crojoe]

Mar 21, 2011 15:33:18 GMT 1 Carol said:

i wish Britain would just stay out of other country's quarrels. No one thanks us for them and it all gets paid for by the tax payer. We get the costs but not the benefits, even if the effort is successful in the end, well not since the end of the nineteenth century anyway. (Can anyone tell me I am wrong about this?)

Very true! All we the UK public got out of it was terrorism attacks, costly oil prices, dead soldiers and less freedom. All began when fair Blaire started beating around the "Bush".

[ray51]

Yeah , you could say that , at this moment ,
about any "3rd world" place , like e.g. Libya ;
but H.M. The Queeen of U.K. shook hands with and then : and entertained generously the numerous dictators/murderers/"presidents for their lifetime/s" ,
like Josip Broz Tito or Kenneth Kaunda or Robert Mugabe ;
hey , no probs about any of this ,
since : "historia magistra vitae est" ,
so , as we can all still view in B&W :
Neville Chamberlain announcing how he closed a really superb deal with Herr Hitler ( Adolf , i.e. ) ,
or the imbeciles of the later world :
celebrating the overthrow of the Shah of Iran ,
or of the ex-commie ( Nelson Mandela's ) A.N.C. having been given the South African "democracy" , on the silverest of plates ;
hehehe , much good came of all that ;
like from the "independence" of Namibia ( former : South-West Africa , an U.N protectorate , after Germany lost it , after the WW1 ) or from what you can be deigned to see from places like Sudan , Ethiopia , Erithrea , Yemen , Laos , Cambodia , Yemen , Azerbeijan ...as & when the ( ever-manipulating Western ) media permits you to see anything worthwhile and/or trustworthy....

[mambo]

Problem is that many people don't understand what it takes to enforce a no fly zone.
Before you can fly over Libyan territory you have to take out all air defences and that includes the command and control section of those air defences.
But.........since there are also anti aircraft guns on a tank chassis...........they also need to take those out. Not that these guns can shoot very far (read: high), but they prevent the planes from going below 10,000'
Same goes for the portable shoulder launched surface to air missiles.

In all it means that enforcing a no-fly zone requires a lot more than people may think when they hear the word 'no fly zone'.

[justapixel]

How on earth do you intend to eliminate portable missile launchers without sending the ground troops.

Essentially, all you need to eliminate are radar and AA missile sites. Everything else is beyond enforcing a no fly zone. There is zero need to go below ten thousand feed unless you intend to land or perform air strikes. Excessive as it was, this was simply a demonstration of power.

.

[mambo]

Well,

No fly also means helicopters and even Air to Ground strikes (by Libyan aircraft) are performed below 10,000', so there is a real need to fly below 10.000'

It is of course impossible to eliminate portable SAM's, but you normally don't find them in the middle of the desert. It is logic that a group of tanks or some other military convoy will have a few of them around.

My guess is that US, British and French forces want to create circumstances in which the so called rebels will be able to take matters in their own hand. It will be a balancing act.

[justapixel]

You can shoot a low-flying aircraft from any altitude. Also, the parts of Libya that matter are densely populated urban zones.

Yeah, it will be a (dis)balancing act, as usual... Probably we'll have a status quo and two Libyas in the end.

.