Please may someone explain to me why this no fly zone would be a bad thing for Gudaffi and such a positive thing for the world?
Does it basically mean no planes can fly over Libya? Why is this met with opposition in the USA?
Many thanks
Chris
It would mean that he couldn't use his airforce to attack civilians (or anyone) as they'd be legitimately engaged and likely shot down by UN sanctioned aircraft (probably US ones but under the mandate of the UN rather than off their own backs as in Iraq).
The US are very wary of getting involved without explicit UN backing because of Iraq/etc and don't want to risk (more) negative feeling against themselves as the region is in a period of change which could well lead to them having less control in the area.
It's a military no fly zone, meaning he can't use his air force, any military aircraft would be at risk of being shot down be whoever polices the no fly zone.
That combined with the fact that to patrol it, you'd need to take out any of Libya's air defences, means you are pretty much attacking Libya with military force, which is a big step.
[img] 
[/img]
I thought they were the lower-class parts of town, where everyone wears tracksuit bottoms.
Yep, any aircraft would be shot out of the sky.
I worry that Gadaffi would break out the field guns and mortars which are even more indiscriminate.
Unless he leaves of his own accord this will be a very messy and difficult civil war.
What Andituk said.
It essentially breaks down that no aircraft whatsoever can fly over libyan airspace apart from UN sanctioned patrols. Any aircraft in violation of this is either escorted to a UN base or shot down if not responsive.
To set it up would require the disabling of libyan air defences and also close monitoring on the ground of any mobile air defences.
And the unintended consequence will be that we suspect he's filled a commercial airliner with mercenaries (because he will plant intelligence to lead us to that conclusion) we shoot it down, only to find it full of foreign workers trying to get home.
And that will leave the score at one-all.
Replay to be held back at Lockerbie.
Lockerbie was nothing to do with Libya tho.
Lockerbie was nothing to do with Libya tho.
Think that will need some further explanation!
Nothing to do with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, maybe. But try telling that to Yvonne Fletcher.
It was Iran in revenge for the shooting down of one of their airliners shortly before. Or more specifically the Iranian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command
No credible evidence linking it to Libya, no motive. Plenty of credible evidence for it being this bunch of loonies.
Lots of unanswered questions. The whole thing was a massive stitch up by the UK and US authorities.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/by-tam-dalyell-former-labour-mp-for.html
http://www.lockerbietruth.com/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2009603.ece
It was Iran in revenge for the shooting down of one of their airliners shortly before. Or more specifically the Iranian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General CommandNo credible evidence linking it to Libya, no motive. Plenty of credible evidence for it being this bunch of loonies.
Lots of unanswered questions. The whole thing was a massive stitch up by the UK and US authorities.
One of the MANY conspiracy theories being banded about.
LHS - I am no conspiracy theorist but having followed this closely from the beginning I am certain that is the truth.
You're entitled to believe what you want. But to say that Libya had nothing to do with it is IMPO incorrect when there is evidence linking the sale of the micro-switch detonator to libyan "officials" and evidence that a libyan was paid $10m to design and build the bomb. There are links through to Iran certainly, especially on the funding side, but to say Libya was not involved is incorrect IMPO.
LHS - those are two of the non credible pieces of evidence - read the Jim Swires site.
It's my understanding that what a "no fly zone" actually means, is destroying the "enemies" means to fly, so planes, airbases, anti-aircraft placements etc would all be targetted first, to allow our planes to patrol.
EDIT: So the reluctance is because it is basically a miltary attack on a (another) foreign power. The US are reluctant to lead, not reluctant to be involved however.
I am familiar with Dr Swires site and beliefs.
Still got 3 months to live it seems..... 😯
so when a 'no fly zone' is put into place then Libya will be looking to destroy the enemy planes...
Kev
"No Fly Zone" is the new name for the RAF & Navy.
A ban on bluebottles, tetse etc midges and gnats are allowed.
While reading up on Wikipedia, I've just noticed that Disney World, Florida has a no fly zone round it. 😀
No flies - ace. Now they just need no wasps and they'll be sorted.
While reading up on Wikipedia, I've just noticed that Disney World, Florida has a no fly zone round it.
Wonder if they were attacked and had any aircraft destroyed beforehand?
we suspect he's filled a commercial airliner with mercenaries (because he will plant intelligence to lead us to that conclusion) we shoot it down, only to find it full of foreign workers trying to get home.
The crafty ****er plans to fool our intelligence service ...........have you told MI6 ?
After the recent cockups, the last thing our boys need is another embarrassing situation which needs explaining.
Watch out LHS - TJ is about to state categorically that he's right, you're wrong and that you don't understand. You mark my words 😉
......because he read it on the interweb
(you missed that bit out)
I think its absolutely discusting that a 'No Fly Zone' is being talked about.
Basically its tountermount to declaring war on Libya. However because we in the west are civilised we get legal permission to do it through the UN. Does Libya currently have representation at the UN, will they want to sanction a war on themselves?
What a load of b@llocks.
Also what were the SAS doing in Libya. Escorting a diplomat, obviously not they are not going to tell the public the truth why they were there. I would have thought the real reason would be to blow a few bits and bats of Colonel Gaddafi stuff up and help the up rising.
All very western and civilised ay.
I am familiar with Dr Swires site and beliefs.Still got 3 months to live it seems.....
How long does this guy have to live? Quite a while probably
I think its absolutely discusting [i](sic)[/i] that a 'No Fly Zone' is being talked about.
You're right of course the civilised nations of the world should stand idly by while Gaddafi use strike aircraft and helicopter gunships against civilians.
Visualise a situation where during the Northern Ireland troubles the UN/States/Libya or anyone for that matter imposed no fly zone on us. Whats the difference?
Of course the real crime that Gaddafi has committed is causing instability in a country where we have significant commercial interests by refusing to go quietly - we don't normally give much of a shit about people bombing their own citizens.
its pointless really
gaddaffi has mostly been using tanks and mortars anyway
just a way of keeping tubthumping hawks happy, did anyone see john mcains interview on newsnight yesterday- ****t
arguably the no fly zone thing can work when his holiness tony blair pushed for air intervention against serbia it probably stopped further genocide
i suspect the cia are trying to find proxy intermediaries to pass weapons on to the rebels to fight a proxy war against poxy gaddafi
-lets hope they have better intelligence than the sas
the danger is that politicians instigating unpopular domestic policies want to be seen to be 'doing something' on the international stage
The imposition of a fly zone over amother country means you are seeking to control that country. A subtle way of saying you are going to invade.
Should we be getting involved with Libya?
The Middle East is going to be an even more brutal place to live in the coming years.
Culturally, they tell us we don't understand them, but there's 20% unemployment and half the 50 million population of Lybia is under 18. One could argue that the culture is the problem!
In the West, the overwhelming majority don't replicate so frequently. We simply can't afford too many children. Western population is in decline.
Pan over to developing countries, due to fears of high mortality rates in youngsters and the cultural behavior of having as many babies as you can to secure your wellbeing in old age, in Libya you end up with most of the 10 million unemployed rioting on the streets.
Dictatorship regimes rule in the Middle East. How many of the 21 coutries have democracy? Name one Arab country other than Egypt? Gadaffi is a tyrant who is happy to kncok people off if he feels they are dissenting in any way. People are intimidated by him, but deep down want him gone.
Western democracy is far from perfect, but at least the leaders have a little bit of accountability to the people.
Religion is a big issue there too and this is a whole subject in itself.
Personally, I think we should butt out and not get involved in anymore conflicts in the Middle East. All Britain is doing is wasting money it doesn't have and storing up trouble for us normal people further down the line. With people like Tony Blair being involved, we no longer have any moral credibility in these regions (if we ever did have any).
It's the oil that is the problem and dictators like Gadaffi aren't known for sharing the wealth. Even though Libya only produce a small percentage of total output, the western world's dependency on oil gives us a strong motivation to remain involved
With all that black gold spilling out of the ground, imagine what the Arab World would be like if they had a more modern outlook on how to build an economy.
is it all part of a plan to buy back the weaponry that the west has provided Lybia with, in an unused state at a bargain price ?
"want to be seen to be 'doing something' on the international stage"
Yep waisting even more money we have got.
I think its absolutely disgusting that a 'No Fly Zone' is being talked about.
It's unlikely to receive UN backing because of opposition from countries such as Russia, which know that the claims Libyan fighters are targeting civilians are just false Western/rebel propaganda.
Russian does not support Gaddafi - they have called for his departure and condemned him :
[url= http://en.rian.ru/world/20110225/162759106.html ]Russia condemns Libya over use of force against civilians[/url]
But Russia also claims that there is no evidence the Libyan air force has been targeting civilians :
The claims that Gaddafi has been using foreign mercenaries are also false propaganda. Which probably explains why it is rarely mentioned now - compared to when the "story" first broke.
In essence, the Western media/rebels can make any claim they wish concerning Gaddafi, and most people will believe the bollox along with the truth. It doesn't make it all true however.
Visualise a situation where during the Northern Ireland troubles the UN/States/Libya or anyone for that matter imposed no fly zone on us. Whats the difference?
I must have missed the bit where we used harriers and tornados to bomb innocent protesting civilians.
🙄
I must have missed the bit where we used harriers and tornados to bomb innocent protesting civilians.
Maybe the Chinese population heard about those incidents ?
Russian does not support Gaddafi
Russia also claims that there is no evidence the Libyan air force has been targeting civilians
Given that they're happy to supply tanks, anti aircraft systems and aircraft, the Russians are hardly opposing the regime (the same position as the EU ) and at the same time, I can see why they might not want to imagine their jets being used against civillians.
Russian does not support Gaddafi
Hmmm, I must have mis-read that $1.8billion arms deal that they signed last year!
Hmmm, I must have missed that $1.8billion arms deal that they signed last year!
So that means we support him too then? 🙄
Not convinced by ernie's conspiracy theory tbh but really....
Given that they're happy to supply tanks, anti aircraft systems and aircraft, the Russians are hardly opposing the regime
Why would the Russians not oppose a leader on his way out ? Why would they not throw their weight behind the rebels in the hope of currying favour with the future leaders of Libya ?
It is an indisputable fact that Russia has condemned Gaddafi and called for his departure.
However, I suspect that the Russian are fully aware that the West is up to no good in Libya, and don't intend to help them with false propaganda. The battle ground appears to be oil installations - how strange.
I can see why they might not want to imagine their jets being used against civillians.
😕 I thought the accusation centred heavily on French supplied Mirage F1s ?
So that means we support him too then?
Do you honestly think we really care who is in charge? As long as the extraction of oil does not get interupted we couldn't care less.
come here you big hunk of love....all's forgiven...
[img] 
[/img]
We've pretty much now committed to get rid of Gadaffi with all of our condemnation. If he stays now, and that's not beyond channce, we're going to look very silly trying to negotiate with this madman now. If he takes back control of enough of the country are we gonna roll in for 'regime change'?
