Support NeoGAF

[ViralMarketingDrone]

Clusterfuck. But a region in chaos probably means cheaper ressources. (See kongo)
So very humanitarian of nato.

 

[Nexus Zero]

This is an outrageous assertion to anyone familiar with the history of Al-Queda.

Al-Queda was formed by an Egyptian and Saudi Arabian with the goal of assisting the Afghan Mujahadeen in the effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. From the beginning, the group has had theological justifications that define the local country rulers as the "near enemy" and the US as the "far enemy", a definition based less on the imperialist actions of the US but on its character as a force for secularism in the world.

Al-Queda is fighting an ideological war, and to boil their grievances down to foreign policy alone is absurd. Keep in mind that the US was involved in no hot wars in the middle east at the time Al Queda carried out 9/11.

What Scheuer would be accurate in saying if he said it, is that the young men who form the base for Al Queda and other fundamentalist groups are motivated more by American intervention than anything else. That is a fair statement. However, the leadership of these groups is and will continue to be motivated chiefly by ideology.

Also, they released a statement specifically outlining which freedoms of ours they hate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

 

[scorcho]

Note China's non-interventionist approach despite its stake. Sign of a dynamic shift in global foreign policy to come from an Eastern Super Power?

I think this interpretation is a bit misguided - China has very strong internal reasons not to respond (why would they support NSA 'freedom-fighters' rebelling against a dictatorial regime afar, while wildly suppressing the reports of such at home?) and further has the sense to not step into what has become another Western intervention (tm).

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

I think this interpretation is a bit misguided - China has very strong internal reasons not to respond (why would they support NSA 'freedom-fighters' rebelling against a dictatorial regime afar, while wildly suppressing the reports of such at home?) and further has the sense to not step into what has become another Western intervention (tm).

Nothing in the CCP's history indicates that it cares much about coming across as a hypocrite when it comes to suppressing its own people and to equate China's self-image (which for the most part it isn't particularly worried about) with China's invested interest in global strategic resources would be a grave mistake. China's decision to remain non-interventionist is clearly a different political philosophy based on dynamic differences in thought about implications from those in the West.

 

[scorcho]

I owe it less to a philosophical construct within the CCP than a rather frank assessment of their own power / grand strategy.

 

[Half and half]

Here's a new development:

Libya: Gaddafi government accepts peace plan, says Zuma

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13029165

South African President Jacob Zuma says the Libyan government has accepted an African Union peace plan to end the eight-week-old conflict.

Mr Zuma and three other African leaders met Libya's leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi, in Tripoli on Sunday. An AU team is now going on to the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

...

The African Union's road map calls for an immediate cease-fire, opening channels for humanitarian aid and talks between the rebels and the government.

"The brother leader [Col Gaddafi] delegation has accepted the roadmap as presented by us," Mr Zuma declared.

"We have to give the ceasefire a chance," he said, after several hours of talks.

Hope this works out.

 

[Meadows]

the African Union is a poorly run, corrupt piece of shit. I hope nobody trusts them to do anything that isn't self-serving and wrong.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

The African Union has been on Gaddafi's side from the beginning and has been unrelenting with its support. They call him "the brother leader" even now. Any deal brokered by them is sure to keep Gaddafi in power.

 

[RustyNails]

The African Union has been on Gaddafi's side from the beginning and has been unrelenting with its support. They call him "the brother leader" even now. Any deal brokered by them is sure to keep Gaddafi in power.

This. This is nothing but thugs getting together and saving their thug brother's face. Gaddafi leaves or bust. No deal.

 

[Pterion]

the African Union is a poorly run, corrupt piece of shit. I hope nobody trusts them to do anything that isn't self-serving and wrong.

Quoted for truth. Look at how poorly they handled the ivorian crisis. Angola, South Africa and Ghana are still funding the illegal government there.

 

[Half and half]

Yes and Gaddafi's record on keeping ceasefires is less than commendable. But certainly the AU is aware of the rebel's stance. I'm really curious as to what they're thinking and will present to the rebels.

"It's up to the Libyan people to chose their leaders democratically."

I'm assuming Gaddafi stays in power and they hold elections? Any numbers on how the population breaks down in that case?

 

[RustyNails]

I'm assuming Gaddafi stays in power and they hold elections? Any numbers on how the population breaks down in that case?

With Gaddafi in power, any election will be a sham election with 99% supporting him. It's useless.

 

[Gaborn]

To no one's surprise:

April 11 (Bloomberg) -- Libya's rebels rejected a cease- fire plan proposed by the African Union and accepted by Muammar Qaddafi because it doesn't meet their demand that he give up power.

"Qaddafi must leave immediately if he wants to survive," the head of Libya's rebel council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, said at a televised news conference in Benghazi.

The African Union said in an e-mailed statement today that Qaddafi agreed to end hostilities immediately and hold talks "with the view to adopting and implementing the political reforms necessary for the elimination of the causes of the current crisis." There was no mention of Qaddafi stepping down as part of the agreement.

"The initiative that was presented by the African Union doesn't satisfy the aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom and doesn't provide for the removal of Qaddafi," Abdulhafid Ghoga, spokesman of the Interim Transational National Council, said in Benghazi, the eastern Libya city that is the rebel stronghold. "It speaks about reforming the system from within, and this is rejected."

Oil Declines

Crude has risen more than 30 percent since the conflict began. Oil for May delivery fell $1.84 cents, or 1.6 percent, to $110.95 a barrel at 12:24 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures settled at $112.79 a barrel on April 8, the highest closing price since Sept. 22, 2008.

After almost two months of fighting, troops loyal to Qaddafi and rebels in the North African country, holder of Africa's largest oil reserves, have fought to a stalemate, with battles moving back and forth in a small area along the coast. Qaddafi's forces today continued to rain artillery fire into the besieged western city of Misrata, where NATO airstikes have failed to protect civilians from the loyalists, the Associated Press reported.

"Despite Qaddafi attempts to hide behind civilians, we are finding his military hardware in other locations and we are destroying it with increasing success," Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, NATO's mission commander, said in an e-mailed statement.

AU Proposal

An AU delegation including representatives from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Mauritania, South Africa and Uganda arrived in Benghazi today to meet rebel leaders, after presenting the plan to Qaddafi yesterday.

The AU proposal provides for a cease-fire, the organization of humanitarian relief efforts, the protection of foreign nationals and a "political process," Mull Katende, Uganda's ambassador to the union, said today in Benghazi before talks with the rebels began. Once political negotiations began, the subject of Qaddafi's departure could be discussed, he said.

"Of course we would like to see elections in Libya," said Katende. "We stand by this."

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration regards Qaddafi's departure as a non- negotiable element of any cease-fire agreement. There "needs to be a transition that reflects the will of the Libyan people and the departure of Qaddafi from power and from Libya," Clinton told reporters today.

Asked about the African Union's peace proposal, Clinton said she would wait for a 'full briefing'' before responding.

Regime Fears

Mediation efforts may not work because "people on the rebel side are totally committed to Qaddafi leaving power, and he won't," said Andrew Terrill, a Middle East specialist at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College. "They fear that any compromise with Qaddafi where he stays in power, he'll put them in jail or have them executed."

The Qaddafi family "have to relinquish power and leave the country," Shamiya said. "We think that the no-fly zone, the international isolation of Qaddafi and the economic sanctions imposed on his regime can achieve this."

The U.S. and allies from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization began air strikes against Qaddafi's forces on March 19, a day after a United Nations resolution authorized the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians.

After initial advances under NATO air cover, the rebels were again pushed back by Qaddafi's forces, leading some insurgent leaders to criticize the U.S.-led military campaign.

NATO Airstrikes

The opposition forces yesterday regained control of the strategic coastal town of Ajdabiya, with help from NATO strikes, said Khaled El Shayeh, a coordinator between the rebel military at the frontline and their political leadership in Benghazi. "NATO did a great effort yesterday," he said in a phone interview. "The whole of Ajdabiya is under our control."

Airstrikes blew up 11 tanks belonging to forces loyal to Qaddafi as they approached Ajdabiya yesterday, and 14 more were hit earlier on the outskirts of Misrata. NATO also said strikes left craters in the road used by Qaddafi to resupply troops shelling Ajdabiya.

The Libyan government said yesterday it shot down two attack helicopters used by rebel forces over Brega, the Associated Press reported, citing Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Amin.

"It looks like a stalemate," with the rebels unable to conduct any sustained military operation on their own, Terrill said. "You wonder if we will have a de facto partition, at least for a while."

'Huge Success'

South African President Jacob Zuma, who led the first part of the delegation to Tripoli, yesterday called on NATO to end its bombardment and "give the cease-fire a chance," the AP reported. Zuma returned to South Africa today, describing the meeting as a "huge success," according to an e-mailed statement from his office.

The African delegation was met in Benghazi today by thousands of people chanting anti-government slogans and waving Libyan, French, Spanish and Qatari flags. Outside the Hotel Cibefti, where the AU talks with rebels were taking place, people held banners that read "Qaddafi=Misery" and "No dialogue until the tyrant and his children leave"

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said any cease-fire agreement between Libyan regime forces and the rebellion must be "credible and verifiable."

"We have seen quite a number of announced cease-fires and they have not been implemented, and for that reason we need to establish an effective monitoring mechanism," Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels today. A prolonged stalemate could result in the North African country becoming a failed state, he said.

In other developments in the Middle East, nine Syrian soldiers were killed yesterday when gunmen ambushed their vehicles in the coastal oil hub of Banias, where tanks were deployed to contain protests spreading across the country, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency reported. President Bashar al- Assad ordered the release of 191 people detained after protests in Damascus, Al Watan newspaper reported.

Foreign ministers of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council meeting yesterday in the Saudi capital of Riyadh urged Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down and called for a unity government led by the opposition.

Story Here

And the fighting continues.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Sorry, Africa, but until you can surmount your horrible corruption, no deal.

 

[m3k]

is there an idea on gaf on how much of libya is controlled by the rebels and how much is ghadaffi?

 

[Swifty]

Rebels Urge U.S. To Take Bigger Role In Libya

Libyan rebels urged the U.S. to resume a more central role in the NATO-led air campaign on Wednesday, as thousands of people in the western city of Misurata rushed to flee a withering bombardment by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

"When the Americans were involved, the mission was very active and it was more leaning toward protecting the civilians," rebel spokesman Mahmoud Shammam said as top Western and Arab envoys gathered in Qatar's capital to discuss ways to end the Libyan crisis. "NATO is very slow responding to these attacks on the civilians. We'd like to see more work toward protecting the civilians."

Shamman's remarks before the one-day conference were the latest sign that the U.S., which recently turned over enforcement of a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over Libya to its NATO allies, might have handed over the reins too soon.

French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet complained Tuesday that France and Britain were carrying "the brunt of the burden" for the Libya operation. American forces are now in support, not combat roles in the airstrike campaign, and the reduced U.S. effort has made it impossible "to loosen the noose around Misurata," Longuet said.

On Wednesday, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe urged allies in the NATO-led coalition to "keep up strong and robust military pressure" to force Gadhafi out.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC that he thinks the Libyan opposition is "steadily becoming better organized," but could not predict how long the military stalemate would persist.

In Paris, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy planned to hold talks Wednesday about the military operation in Libya.

"Let's be realistic. The fact that the U.S. has left the sort of the kinetic part of the air operation has had a sizable impact. That is fairly obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.

Divisions also have emerged within NATO over where to go next with the Libya operation.

Italy's foreign ministry spokesman, Maurizio Massari, said Wednesday that the idea of giving the rebels defense weapons was under consideration. "The discussion of arms is certainly on the table," he said. "We are not talking about offensive arms. ... Every country will decide. It is a political decision."

Belgium has said it opposes either boosting air attacks or giving arms to the opposition.

 

[Zenith]

Due to budget cuts our Typhoons never dropped any bombs on ground forces as even out top pilots weren't fully trained in using ground bombs. Our Tornadoes did though.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

America jumps back in: "STOOPID M'URICANS TRYIN' POLICE THE WUUUUURLD."

 

[Roude Leiw]

Due to budget cuts our Typhoons never dropped any bombs on ground forces as even out top pilots weren't fully trained in using ground bombs. Our Tornadoes did though.

do you have a link to a source?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Due to budget cuts our Typhoons never dropped any bombs on ground forces as even out top pilots weren't fully trained in using ground bombs. Our Tornadoes did though.

The BBC just showed some gun-cam footage and said it was the first from a Typhoon...

 

[Zenith]

do you have a link to a source?

Sure, here it is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8446855/RAF-training-cuts-leave-Typhoons-idle.html

The Royal Air Force's most advanced warplanes have been unable to drop bombs on Libyan targets because defence spending cuts mean that pilots are not fully trained

The Ministry of Defence announced last week that RAF Typhoons would drop bombs on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's tanks and other ground targets.

But so far this has not happened, because the planes' pilots are not considered to be properly trained in ground attacks.

In a further embarrassment, laser targeting pods for the Typhoons, which cost £160 million, have been left in packing crates because the RAF has not been able to pay for its pilots to train to use them.

I'm actually guessing about the Tornadoes bit. But all the footage showed them carrying bombs and they're now used more as bombers than fighters in past wars.

edit:

and by clicking the related links I can now see this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...f-first-Typhoon-strike-in-Libya-released.html

The Ministry of Defence releases video of moment an RAF Typhoon destroyed a Libyan government tank outside Misurata.

The Typhoon was patrolling alongside a Tornado aircraft on April 12th when the regime's main battle tanks were spotted to the south of Misurata.

Both planes attacked and the Typhoon managed to destroy two of the tanks with Enhanced Paveway II precision guided bombs.

hmm.

 

[AlimNassor]

Gotta at least respect the rebels it's either freedom or death. They won't bow down or give in. At least if they die they'll go down as freemen.

 

[Psychotext]

hmm.

It's only a certain type of bomb that they haven't been trained how to use. Can't remember which one that is though.

 

[KingK]

Gotta at least respect the rebels it's either freedom or death. They won't bow down or give in. At least if they die they'll go down as freemen.

Yeah, but at the same time, backing down now is practically equal to death. It doesn't matter what Gaddafi would say to the outside world, everyone knows that if he retains control, he'll hunt down and execute these rebels. I'm sure the rebels believe this too, and that's one reason why they won't stop until Gaddafi is out of power. Once you start a revolution against a brutal dictator, the only real options are regime change or death.

 

[HawksEye]

lol

 

[Lagspike_exe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html

NATO RUNNING OUT OF PRECISION AMMO

Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.

The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months.

U.S. strike aircraft that participated in the early stage of the operation, before the United States relinquished command to NATO and assumed what President Obama called a “supporting” role, have remained in the theater “on 12-hour standby” with crews “constantly briefed on the current situation,” a NATO official said.

So far, the NATO commander has not requested their deployment. Several U.S. military officials said they anticipated being called back into the fight, although a senior administration official said he expected other countries to announce “in the next few days” that they would contribute aircraft equipped with the laser-guided munitions.

Opposition spokesmen in the western Libyan city of Misurata, under steady bombardment by government shelling, said Friday that Gaddafi’s forces had used cluster bombs, and Human Rights Watch said its representatives on the ground had witnessed the explosion of cluster munitions in civilian areas there. The Libyan government denied the weapons had been used.

A spokesman for the Misurata City Council appealed for NATO to send ground troops to secure the port that is the besieged city’s only remaining humanitarian lifeline.

The opposition has also repeatedly called for an increase in NATO airstrikes. The six countries conducting the air attacks, led by Britain and France, were unsuccessful at a meeting this week in Berlin in persuading more alliance members to join them.

NATO officials said that their operational tempo has not decreased since the United States relinquished command of the Libya operation and withdrew its strike aircraft at the beginning of April. More planes, they said, would not necessarily result immediately in more strike missions.

But, they said, the current bombing rate by the participating nations is not sustainable. “The reason we need more capability isn’t because we aren’t hitting what we see — it’s so that we can sustain the ability to do so. One problem is flight time, the other is munitions,” said another official, one of several who were not authorized to discuss the issue on the record.

European arsenals of laser-guided bombs, the NATO weapon of choice in the Libyan campaign, have been quickly depleted, officials said. Although the United States has significant stockpiles, its munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions.

Britain and France have each contributed about 20 strike aircraft to the campaign. Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Canada have each contributed six — all of them U.S.-manufactured and compatible with U.S. weaponry.

Since the end of March, more than 800 strike missions have been flown, with U.S. aircraft conducting only three, targeting static Libyan air defense installations. The United States still conducts about 25 percent of the overall sorties over Libya, largely intelligence, jamming and refueling missions.

Other NATO countries, along with the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan, have contributed planes to enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi’s use of airpower, but so far have declined to participate in the strike missions.

After the Berlin meeting, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rassmussen said that 10 more aircraft were needed and that he was confident they would be supplied. A U.S. official said that Italy — which earlier in the week said it was not interested — may contribute planes to the ground attack mission, and that the Arab participants might also do so.

But with Gaddafi’s forces and the rebel army locked in a stalemate, Obama has resisted calls from opposition leaders, and some hardline lawmakers in this country, to move U.S. warplanes back into a leading role.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other have called on Obama to redeploy U.S. AC-130 gunships, which are considered more effective over populated areas.

Although the gunships flew several missions early in the operation, Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded the mission before it was turned over to NATO, said last week that they were frequently grounded because of weather and other concerns.

The slow-moving aircraft, which flew as low as 4,000 feet over Libya, are also considerably more vulnerable than jet fighters to surface-to-air missiles. While much of Libya’s stationary air defenses have been destroyed, Ham said Gaddafi was believed to have about 20,000 shoulder-held SAMS at the beginning of the conflict, and “most” of them are still unaccounted for.

Concerns that supplies of jet-launched precision bombs are growing short in Europe have reignited long-standing controversies over both burden-sharing and compatibility within NATO. While allied jets have largely followed the U.S. lead and converted to precision munitions over the last decade, they have struggled to keep pace, according to senior U.S. military officials.

Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows.”

Despite U.S. badgering, European allies have been slow in some cases to modify their planes and other weapons systems so they can accommodate U.S. bombs. Retooling these fighter jets so that they are compatible with U.S. systems requires money, and all European militaries have faced significant cuts in recent years.

Typically, the British and French militaries buy munitions in batches and stockpile them. When arsenals start to run low, factories must be retooled and production lines restarted to replace the diminished stock, all of which can take time and additional money, said Elizabeth Quintana, an aerospace analyst at the Royal United Service Institute in London.

As we discussed earlier in this thread, NATO without USA... Does not exist. It's very clear that UK, France & the rest of the allied forces are powerless without USA leadership.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

LOL. Just keeps getting sadder.

This war is already a stalemate.

 

[Flambe]

Damn (relative) peace, eh

 

[nubbe]

Well, now Russia knows they can invade EU since we are all out of ammo

 

[Roude Leiw]

if they are running out of ammo after only one month how would they be able to defend Europe in case of an attack?

 

[Cosmonaut X]

if they are running out of ammo after only one month how would they be able to defend Europe in case of an attack?

I suspect that in the event of a proper attack on the EU, or a nation thereof, you would see rather more of a mobilisation by the general populace (and the accompanying boost in arms manufacturing) than you do in the case of a limited intervention in a foreign theatre.

Spoiler

That said, it is rather embarassing to have to throw up your hands and admit that such a limited engagement has already depleted particular ammo stocks...

 

[Bregor]

I read a history of air warfare recently, which included everything up about 2006. One of the points made in it is that if you compare the weapons used in the first gulf war and the second, you find that the use of precision munitions by the US has greatly increased. The USAF has heavily invested in these technologies, not just because they are more efficient, but also because they reduce collateral damage. Other NATO armed forces have not adopted these technologies nearly as rapidly or extensively as the US has. Much of their air capability still relies on dumb bombs. Even as early as the NATO participation in Bosnia, the US planners were often frustrated by the limitations of the other air forces participating in this regard.

 

[Meadows]

As we discussed earlier in this thread, NATO without USA... Does not exist. It's very clear that UK, France & the rest of the allied forces are powerless without USA leadership.

*pounds face against wall*

 

[Lagspike_exe]

*pounds face against wall*

Are you suggesting that NATO minus USA is capable of leading a sustained war outside Europe/NA? The fact that they're running out of smart ammo after this short period suggests otherwise.

USA is the only country in the world capable of intervening anytime anywhere in the world. UK, France and the rest just proved they were nothing besides support in every mission in the last 20+ years.

 

[TacticalFox88]

NATO countries aren't winning a conflict with an ass-backwards African state? Wow. Pathetic. This should've been a curbstomp.

 

[Phantast2k]

I read a history of air warfare recently, which included everything up about 2006. One of the points made in it is that if you compare the weapons used in the first gulf war and the second, you find that the use of precision munitions by the US has greatly increased. The USAF has heavily invested in these technologies, not just because they are more efficient, but also because they reduce collateral damage. Other NATO armed forces have not adopted these technologies nearly as rapidly or extensively as the US has. Much of their air capability still relies on dumb bombs. Even as early as the NATO participation in Bosnia, the US planners were often frustrated by the limitations of the other air forces participating in this regard.

Well the the US also spends like 1/5th of it's budget on the military while cutting heating assistance for the poor etc.
It's not that we can't have this tech, we just have different priorities when it comes to gov. spending.

NATO countries aren't winning a conflict with an ass-backwards African state? Wow. Pathetic. This should've been a curbstomp.

How's that winning in Iraq going?

/playing the devil's advocate here

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Gaddafi is firing cluster bombs on residential neighborhoods in Misrata.

Cluster bombs, in which a delivery bomb releases many little bomblets over a zone, are forbidden under international law since August 2010 because of the indiscriminate deaths they can cause in civilian populations.

 

[thekad]

NATO countries aren't winning a conflict with an ass-backwards African state? Wow. Pathetic. This should've been a curbstomp.

unfortunate choice of words...

 

[Bregor]

IMO NATO can win a war without the US. The trouble is that they have neither clearly defined what their goals are, nor chosen to use the force necessary to reach those goals. They keep using as little force as possible, hoping that it will be enough, and then wringing their hands when it doesn't work.

 

[Walshicus]

NATO countries aren't winning a conflict with an ass-backwards African state? Wow. Pathetic. This should've been a curbstomp.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, blah blah blah.

 

[TacticalFox88]

IMO NATO can win a war without the US. The trouble is that they have neither clearly defined what their goals are, nor chosen to use the force necessary to reach those goals. They keep using as little force as possible, hoping that it will be enough, and then wringing their hands when it doesn't work.

They've refused to do ground troops, and let's be honest here. They aren't going to expel Qaddafi without a full-scale ground invasion. Commandos and Spec-ops can only do so much.

 

[theignoramus]

if they are running out of ammo after only one month how would they be able to defend Europe in case of an attack?

The United States is a NATO member. You attack any NATO country, you get a a devastating American response.

 

[Xapati]

IMO NATO can win a war without the US. The trouble is that they have neither clearly defined what their goals are, nor chosen to use the force necessary to reach those goals. They keep using as little force as possible, hoping that it will be enough, and then wringing their hands when it doesn't work.

Yep. It seems their plan was little more than stop Gadaffi's AirForce and pray the Rebels win. No clear goals, no backup plan no planning anything whatsoever. Heck NATO can't even agree who is in charge, it's little wonder they are running out of ammo.

When is this war going to end? When Gadaffi is dead? When there's a cease fire agreement? When democracy is installed? Nothing like this was discussed, NATO just rushed in blindly. The war in Libya is a disaster.

 

[theignoramus]

NATO countries aren't winning a conflict with an ass-backwards African state? Wow. Pathetic. This should've been a curbstomp.

they're not fighting to "win", the UN resolution doesnt permit regime change. They could utterly devastate Gaddafi's army from the air, but their mandate is not to destroy Gaddafi's fighting capability, it is to protect civilians under siege from heavy armour, which Gaddaffi cunningly places in residential areas, making it impossible to take it out without killing the very same civilians NATO is trying to protect.

 

[theignoramus]

Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows.”

Shots fired. But to be fair to the Europeans, the only direct threat they face is from an extremely unlikely Russian attack or terrorism from a non state actor.

 

[Meadows]

Are you suggesting that NATO minus USA is capable of leading a sustained war outside Europe/NA? The fact that they're running out of smart ammo after this short period suggests otherwise.

USA is the only country in the world capable of intervening anytime anywhere in the world. UK, France and the rest just proved they were nothing besides support in every mission in the last 20+ years.

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We are trying to minimise civilian casualties to the best of our ability.
We are not going all out, probably only using about 5% of our airforce.
We are not at full-scale war.
We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.
We have not (and hopefully never will) used our independent nuclear deterrent.

If the UK/France wanted to, we could destroy every fucking tank/SAM launcher/APC in Libya within 24 hours.

And if we really wanted to, we could kill 95% of people in the country within 30 minutes.

So yes. You humongous twat. We can win a war against a 3rd world country.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We are trying to minimise civilian casualties to the best of our ability.
We are not going all out, probably only using about 5% of our airforce.
We are not at full-scale war.
We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.
We have not (and hopefully never will) used our independent nuclear deterrent.

If the UK/France wanted to, we could destroy every fucking tank/SAM launcher/APC in Libya within 24 hours.

And if we really wanted to, we could kill 95% of people in the country within 30 minutes.

So yes. You humongous twat. We can win a war against a 3rd world country.

You tell him!

 

[Wazzim]

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We are trying to minimise civilian casualties to the best of our ability.
We are not going all out, probably only using about 5% of our airforce.
We are not at full-scale war.
We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.
We have not (and hopefully never will) used our independent nuclear deterrent.

If the UK/France wanted to, we could destroy every fucking tank/SAM launcher/APC in Libya within 24 hours.

And if we really wanted to, we could kill 95% of people in the country within 30 minutes.

So yes. You humongous twat. We can win a war against a 3rd world country.

+1 to this.
Be grateful that Europe is fighting according to the rules, seems like one of the few parts of the world that's capable of that kind of thing.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Of course it fucking could you moronic excuse for a human.

We are trying to minimise civilian casualties to the best of our ability.
We are not going all out, probably only using about 5% of our airforce.
We are not at full-scale war.
We have not mobilised our best asset, the Navy and the Special Forces.
We have not (and hopefully never will) used our independent nuclear deterrent.

If the UK/France wanted to, we could destroy every fucking tank/SAM launcher/APC in Libya within 24 hours.

And if we really wanted to, we could kill 95% of people in the country within 30 minutes.

So yes. You humongous twat. We can win a war against a 3rd world country.

Ouch @ the ownage.

 

[theignoramus]

The rebels are now asking for NATO ground troops in Misrata. Situation there is pretty ugly and air strikes arent going to root out Gaddaffi's forces. I dont know who is actually in a position to supply troops, the French? I cant see how the US/UK can commit troops without an almighty internal uproar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/16/libya-muammar-gaddafi

Mission creep.