PDA

View Full Version : US launches missiles against Libya



MiddleAgesMan
03-19-2011, 03:37 PM
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/19/134673008/attacks-reported-despite-gadhafis-cease-fire-vow&sc=fb&cc=fp

hanleyclifford
03-19-2011, 04:04 PM
Here we go again.

RichKrough
03-19-2011, 04:19 PM
We owe Kadafi the ass kicking he never got for his involvement in the bombing of Flight 103 in 1988.
I hope we can put one in the win column for a change.

S.V. Airlie
03-19-2011, 04:41 PM
And everyone here is calling for military cutbacks..And yet are the first ones to say "blow them up". Hypocrits..You want the weaponry available when the chips are down but when it behooves you, you want to cut backs as well. Make up your minds...
Just like your approach to the Somali pirates...

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 04:55 PM
So now we are waging war on Libya?

I agree with Congressman Paul:


Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. As many in the administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the President to initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not exist. According to this long-ignored section, "The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.''

This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States.

Let us be clear about one thing: for the U.S. to take action to establish a "no fly'' zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. For the U.S. to establish any kind of military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires Congressional authorization.

Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that this is a coup d'etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business.

I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 1990s we established "no fly'' zones and all manner of sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in an attempt to force him from power. When that did not work--at a high cost in Iraqi lives--the U.S. ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I do not need to remind my colleagues, was much higher even, in U.S. military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again irresponsible voices are demanding that the U.S. "do something'' about it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the world at our own peril, and as we continue, we only accelerate our economic collapse.

Let the supporters of yet another war in the Middle East come forth to make their case for a U.S. attack against Libya. I will strongly oppose such a move, but it should be very clear that if a war against Libya is to be initiated, it must be declared by the proper Constitutional authority: the U.S. Congress.

George Jung
03-19-2011, 05:01 PM
I appreciate that at least we're letting other countries take the lead. I read Obama has insisted on 'days' not weeks, no US troops on the ground. The 'coalition of the willing' is going to have to handle this one.

Memphis Mike
03-19-2011, 05:01 PM
Sad. Just what this world needs is more war and of course this will all be done on the notion of establishing a democracy. Sound familiar? All of the former Bush cabinet members urged this to be done. I hope the price of gasoline shoots to 15 dollars a gallon regardless.

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 05:13 PM
What goes around comes around.

thedutchtouch
03-19-2011, 05:18 PM
gaddafi declared a ceasefire, and then continued to have his troops lay siege to cities/bomb/shoot, etc. the US's actions are following a UN sanctioned plan. its not like we're charging in there alone like we have done in the recent past under different presidents. and france is enforcing the no fly zone for now, with help from canada and a few others in the coming days.

George Jung
03-19-2011, 05:32 PM
I'm surprised anyone would be critical of even the limited US involvement on this one, and then only reluctantly, with the support of the surrounding arab nations.

I'm also curious that those critical apparently are not concerned with the genocide Gadafhi is perpetrating.

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 05:35 PM
I'm surprised anyone would be critical of even the limited US involvement on this one, and then only reluctantly, with the support of the surrounding arab nations.

I'm also curious that those critical apparently are not concerned with the genocide Gadafhi is perpetrating.
I used to argue with a left wing proff on another forum...he said that (of
Saddam, I think), they're his people to kill if he wants to and we need to let him do it. can't wait until the lefties get a real strong hold on this country...not

S.V. Airlie
03-19-2011, 05:35 PM
I don't really trust the Arab support...Looks good now but give those countries a week..I sense they will turn on us like turning on a dime. The hand that gets bitten by the dog the hand feeds concept...

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 05:38 PM
Is this going to be U.S. Policy from now on? Or do we only take sides and intervene in a civil war when it is an oil-producing state? If so, why have we not proposed military action against the Bahrain and Saudi-Arabian despots who are killing civilians?

What nonsense.

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 05:40 PM
I'm also curious that those critical apparently are not concerned with the genocide Gadafhi is perpetrating.

Genocide?

My understanding is what is happening in Libya is armed rebellion.

S.V. Airlie
03-19-2011, 05:42 PM
Tom I don't really know..I admit...But then again under the current admin.. I thought I would have a better understanding of what its policy would be...Not the president's fault nec. just no grasp as to what his is...

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 05:48 PM
This really angers me.

And if there are U.S. military casualties as a result of this action... will we be expected to sport yellow ribbons and bumper stickers proclaiming "Support Our Troops and the President?"

Will dissent be labeled as "unpatriotic" at best and "traitorous" at worse?

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 05:51 PM
This really angers me.

And if there are U.S. military casualties as a result of this action... will we be expected to sport yellow ribbons and bumper stickers proclaiming "Support Our Troops and the President?"

Will dissent be labeled as "unpatriotic" at best and "traitorous" at worse?

could you give us a balanced and reasonable ratio of acceptable life equivalents of Lybian to, say, Kentuckian deaths

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 06:03 PM
could you give us a balanced and reasonable ratio of acceptable life equivalents of Lybian to, say, Kentuckian deaths

What a simpleton.

Could you explain what threat Libya poses to the United States of America? Keep in mind that we are bombing Libya rather than North Korea and Iran.

Do you count a Bahrainian life less precious than a Libyan's? After all, we are not bombing the Bahrain and Saudi-Arabian despots despite the fact that they are killing civilian protesters.

WX
03-19-2011, 06:08 PM
I actually agree with this one.



UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines
France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships
US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney
Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available
Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 06:09 PM
What a simpleton.

Could you explain what threat Libya poses to the United States of America? Keep in mind that we are bombing Libya rather than North Korea and Iran.
Libya poses no direct threat...now how about that life ratio I asked you about? Think you can do it?

BTW how honest is a direct ad hom attack for reason?

Dutch
03-19-2011, 06:10 PM
Is this going to be U.S. Policy from now on? Or do we only take sides and intervene in a civil war when it is an oil-producing state? If so, why have we not proposed military action against the Bahrain and Saudi-Arabian despots who are killing civilians?

What nonsense.

I have to agree. Its no more our business than the mass execution of thousands of Sub Sahara Africans by their governments. Where were the cruise missiles and tough rhetoric then?

No wonder people around the world despise this country so much.

Memphis Mike
03-19-2011, 06:10 PM
Not much use in trying to carry on a discussion with a "simpleton." lol

bobbys
03-19-2011, 06:11 PM
I have to agree. Its no more our business than the mass execution of thousands of Sub Sahara Africans by their governments. Where were the cruise missiles and tough rhetoric then?

No wonder people around the world despise this country so much..

There is no Earl there!

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 06:12 PM
These days I mostly ignore Phillip Allen.

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 06:15 PM
I have to agree. Its no more our business than the mass execution of thousands of Sub Sahara Africans by their governments. Where were the cruise missiles and tough rhetoric then?

No wonder people around the world despise this country so much.

Correct.

This sort of behavior only encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Possession of such weapons deters the U.S. from military intervention.

Dutch
03-19-2011, 06:17 PM
I was hoping just for once we'd stay the hell out of this crap.

obama dissapoints again.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-19-2011, 06:20 PM
Do you count a Bahrainian life less precious than a Libyan's? After all, we are not bombing the Bahrain and Saudi-Arabian despots despite the fact that they are killing civilian protesters.

Yes, they are worth less. We don't have any bases in Libya, so the rebels pose no direct threat to the U.S. They are value neutral. We do have a base in Bahrain, so the rebels pose a threat to stability, ergo, they are a threat to the U.S. They have a negative value. It's a good thing the Saudis rolled in with their American supplied weapons to tamp down the uprising.

WX
03-19-2011, 06:28 PM
You may not have noticed but the US is not alone on this, besides if it all goes pearshaped you can blame the French...they fired the first shot.:)
There is a social revolution going on across the Middle East and it will falter and die if people like Gaddafi and the leaders in Bahrain aren't stood up to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 06:29 PM
These days I mostly ignore Phillip Allen.

you always have... except for personal attacks...you are limited

George Jung
03-19-2011, 06:33 PM
There are worst fates than being ignored.

I linked to a NYTimes article addressing the decision to be involved in Libya; SOS Clinton was the driving force behind that, after consulting with the English and French. Recognizing that we don't know the half of what's going on, I'm inclined to think how we've involved ourselves - as 'one of many' - is appropriate, and smart.

WX
03-19-2011, 06:35 PM
BTW the header should be:
UN launches missiles against Libya

Dutch
03-19-2011, 06:37 PM
There are worst fates than being ignored.

I linked to a NYTimes article addressing the decision to be involved in Libya; SOS Clinton was the driving force behind that, after consulting with the English and French. Recognizing that we don't know the half of what's going on, I'm inclined to think how we've involved ourselves - as 'one of many' - is appropriate, and smart.

so you trust this gang of political fools more than GW's?

would it be so terrible a thing to just sit one of these pleasant little wars out for once?

Do we have any clue how this is going to turn out? Are we some how sure that whoever takes control in Libya ( and it is as likely to be split into numerous states as a single one) will be more of a humanitarian than kadaffy?

Dutch
03-19-2011, 06:39 PM
BTW the header should be:
UN launches missiles against Libya


I had no idea the UN was in charge of US Navy warships now.

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 06:40 PM
BTW the header should be:
UN launches missiles against Libya

prolly...

The Bigfella
03-19-2011, 06:40 PM
These days I mostly ignore Phillip Allen.

There's plenty more joining you. He's just launched a missile at me over on another thread. Hot air missiles don't do much damage though.

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 06:42 PM
There's plenty more joining you. He's just launched a missile at me over on another thread. Hot air missiles don't do much damage though.

what I said is perfectly true...don't spin...it wasn't an attack at all...just a statement of fact

George Jung
03-19-2011, 06:43 PM
Looking at Gaddafis' record (how many spellings are there, anyway),

I wonder if it's possible to do worse. Note I'm not saying 'it can't possiblly be worse' -

been there, seen it can, in fact. Just saying.

And note that, for once, the US is the laggard on a new war - we're in at the behest of our 'allies'; with luck, we'll be the first ones out of this quagmire.

Dutch
03-19-2011, 06:49 PM
George-

we might have gotten into it after the French but look at what has been committed- last I heard those cruise missiles run about $1 million apiece. tally that against what the rest of NATO has done - once again we are by far bearing the brunt of this thing

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-19-2011, 06:50 PM
Looking at Gaddafis' record (how many spellings are there, anyway),

I wonder if it's possible to do worse.

I don't know if it's worse, but Bahrain cops are doing drive bys now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swScM_glSB0&feature=player_embedded

WX
03-19-2011, 06:53 PM
I had no idea the UN was in charge of US Navy warships now.
It's not. The US is a member state of the UN, the action was sanctioned by the UN and member states are carrying out the directive. Anything else you help with understanding?

m2c1Iw
03-19-2011, 06:55 PM
That is one of the more disgusting things I've ever seen.

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 06:56 PM
I don't know if it's worse, but Bahrain cops are doing drive bys now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swScM_glSB0&feature=player_embedded

amazing...anyone think the cops here will hide behind "they stole our cars". there are plenty of people working out a ratio of US lives to victims de Jour that is fair and balanced

purri
03-19-2011, 07:03 PM
They have bided their time since Lockerbie, Air France, the Italian criuse ship killings (Andrea Doria?), support for Al Fataq, sundry assassinations world wide etc, etc.

The ultimate goal being security in supply of high grade oil.

Larks
03-19-2011, 07:07 PM
I had no idea the UN was in charge of US Navy warships now.

I had no idea the US was in charge of the UN!..........???

BrianW
03-19-2011, 07:12 PM
I read Obama has insisted on 'days' not weeks, no US troops on the ground...

Yet in this list, only one country appears ready for ground troops...


I actually agree with this one.



UK: Providing Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; submarines
France: Carried out mission with at least 12 warplanes including Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; deploying aircraft carrier, warships
US: Firing guided missiles from USS Barry and USS Stout; providing amphibious warships, and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney
Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available
Canada: Providing six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel



I can hear the sucking sound from here...

PeterSibley
03-19-2011, 07:13 PM
Do we have any clue how this is going to turn out? Are we some how sure that whoever takes control in Libya ( and it is as likely to be split into numerous states as a single one) will be more of a humanitarian than kadaffy?

I would be extremely surprised if all oil contracts have not been rewritten in favour of the rebel's new friends ,subject to new ownership . .nothing for nothing .

peb
03-19-2011, 07:13 PM
I don't understand the logic that says if we don't always intervene we should never intervene. Why is it that when a threat of atrocities to human life occurs in the world, in deciding to intervene we cannot consider such factors as 1) international support, 2) chance of success, 3) economic impact of inaction, etc? Why would we adopt the attitude that says "we did not intervene in country X, so we will not intervene this time"? Why should we adopt an attitude that says "we will always intervene"? Taking one of these two approaches seems to be Tommy's answer. Very strange logic indeed.

WX
03-19-2011, 07:13 PM
I had no idea the US was in charge of the UN!..........???
It's okay Greg, just a bit of tunnel vision by the few.

TomF
03-19-2011, 07:25 PM
I see this as an appropriate intervention, though too late coming. As I've said elsewhere, it draws a caveat regarding state sovereignty which is IMO legit, and relies on an international community to enforce it.

While I hope that the rebels overthrow Gaddafi, the UN resolution does not specify regime change. Only enforced halt of gross violence against protesters.

If, God forbid, my own government turned feral and launched air strikes at Montreal, say if Separation once again came into vogue, I'd hope the intrnational community would protect the Quebecois.

WX
03-19-2011, 07:36 PM
Yet in this list, only one country appears ready for ground troops...



I can hear the sucking sound from here...
Quick call Monty's 8th Army out of retirement!
Doesn't mean the Marines are going in. May be for inshore targeting. There is no mention of ground support.

MiddleAgesMan
03-19-2011, 08:21 PM
(From the NY Times blog)

The president said that with the passage on Thursday night of a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Colonel Qadaffi to protect Libyan civilians, the United States would not act alone, and in fact that France, Britain and Arab nations would take the lead. That is the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East. Mr. Obama said flatly that American ground forces would not enter Libya.

“Muammar Qaddafi has a choice,” he said. “The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 08:40 PM
I don't understand the logic that says if we don't always intervene we should never intervene. Why is it that when a threat of atrocities to human life occurs in the world, in deciding to intervene we cannot consider such factors as 1) international support, 2) chance of success, 3) economic impact of inaction, etc? Why would we adopt the attitude that says "we did not intervene in country X, so we will not intervene this time"? Why should we adopt an attitude that says "we will always intervene"? Taking one of these two approaches seems to be Tommy's answer. Very strange logic indeed.

That is indeed very strange logic. Thank goodness it is not mine.

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 08:43 PM
I'll simplify it for you, peb. The USA should only engage in military action in defense of the USA.

And US military action should only occur with Congressional authorization.

cs
03-19-2011, 08:43 PM
I will say I'm kinda on the fence on this one. Yeah Gaddafi is one of those evil guys and yes we do belong to the UN, but than I don't think that the USofA should be the police force for the world.

Why can't we all just get along? It would make life much simpler.

Chad

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 08:48 PM
I will say I'm kinda on the fence on this one. Yeah Gaddafi is one of those evil guys and yes we do belong to the UN, but than I don't think that the USofA should be the police force for the world.

Why can't we all just get along? It would make life much simpler.

Chad

Amen, Chad. The pols forget that "military action" generally means the sacrifice of American lives.

The scary aspect is that with a professional military, rather than a draft, very few American citizens and even fewer American politicians have any "skin" in the game.

hanleyclifford
03-19-2011, 08:50 PM
I'll simplify it for you, peb. The USA should only engage in military action in defense of the USA.

And US military action should only occur with Congressional authorization. I wonder why the Congress has not "authorized" military action against Somali pirates.

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 08:54 PM
I wonder why the Congress has not "authorized" military action against Somali pirates.

Your guess is as good as mine.

hanleyclifford
03-19-2011, 09:01 PM
Maybe the Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to declare war and conclude peace.

Tom Montgomery
03-19-2011, 09:03 PM
It certainly looks that way to me... to our peril.

Allison
03-19-2011, 11:02 PM
You may not have noticed but the US is not alone on this, besides if it all goes pearshaped you can blame the French...they fired the first shot.:)
There is a social revolution going on across the Middle East and it will falter and die if people like Gaddafi and the leaders in Bahrain aren't stood up to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

Gary, I agree that there should be intervention but do you really think that the US is going to allow any of that to happen in Bahrain, that's why they turned a blind eye to their mates the Saudis going in and doing the dirty work.
More people were killed yesterday in Yemen in a peaceful protest than were killed in Benghazi but there is no clamour for intervention in Yemen.
I wonder what Libya has that Yemen doesn't??
Given the fact that the US is already running military ops in Yemen in support of the govt. there I doubt that they'll allow intervention there!

TimH
03-19-2011, 11:09 PM
Why doesnt china have anything to contribute? They just sit back and get fat.

Nicholas Carey
03-19-2011, 11:20 PM
Amen, Chad. The pols forget that "military action" generally means the sacrifice of American lives.

The scary aspect is that with a professional military, rather than a draft, very few American citizens and even fewer American politicians have any "skin" in the game.The ironic thing is, that one of the rationales for doing away with the draft back in the '70s was that a "volunteer" military would help to ensure that we all had skin in the game. Part of the problem with the draft was that if you had money or influence, you could avoid playing pretty easily. Myself, I rather favor a draft along the French lines: 100% conscription with essentially zero exemptions.

I'm torn on this, though. IMHO, the Constitution is clear: the only way the US can get into a war is (A) attacked by or declared war upon by a foreign power, or (B) via formal declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. OTOH, if we're going to project US power around the globe, we ought to be standing up for the principles that this country was supposedly founded upon. Wearing the white hat means sacrifice.

johnw
03-20-2011, 12:01 AM
Yet in this list, only one country appears ready for ground troops...



I can hear the sucking sound from here...
If it's an amphibious assault ship, it's really a small aircraft carrier.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/USN_Amphibious_assault_ships.jpg/800px-USN_Amphibious_assault_ships.jpg

WX
03-20-2011, 12:07 AM
I'm torn on this, though. IMHO, the Constitution is clear: the only way the US can get into a war is (A) attacked by or declared war upon by a foreign power, or (B) via formal declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. OTOH, if we're going to project US power around the globe, we ought to be standing up for the principles that this country was supposedly founded upon. Wearing the white hat means sacrifice.
There's been a few Presidents that have ignored that.

Paul Girouard
03-20-2011, 12:12 AM
If it's an amphibious assault ship, it's really a small aircraft carrier.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/USN_Amphibious_assault_ships.jpg/800px-USN_Amphibious_assault_ships.jpg

No angled decks, all those are some sort of helo op platforms , more than likely used to move ground troops , Marines via Helicopter. They all , that I can make out, have USA flags.

So much for "The USA will not provide ground troops!" Or words to that effect. Pres O full of surprises isn't he!

johnw
03-20-2011, 12:31 AM
No angled decks, all those are some sort of helo op platforms , more than likely used to move ground troops , Marines via Helicopter. They all , that I can make out, have USA flags.

So much for "The USA will not provide ground troops!" Or words to that effect. Pres O full of surprises isn't he!

Aircraft carried: Actual mix depends upon the mission[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship#cite_note-1)
Standard Complement
6 AV-8B Harrier II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II) attack aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-attack_aircraft)
4 AH-1W SuperCobra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-1W) attack helicopter
12 CH-46 Sea Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-46_Sea_Knight) helicopters
4 CH-53 Sea Stallion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-53_Sea_Stallion) helicopters
3 UH-1N Huey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1N_Huey) helicopters
OR
Assault
42 CH-46 Sea Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-46_Sea_Knight) helicopters
OR
Sea Control
20 AV-8B Harrier II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II) attack aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-attack_aircraft)
6 SH-60F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Seahawk#SH-60F_.22Oceanhawk.22)/HH-60H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Seahawk#HH-60H_.22Rescue_Hawk.22) ASW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare) helicopters
So it would be interesting to know what mix of aircraft they think is suitable for this particular mission. Might tell us more about what the mission really is. Is it Harriers and Cobras, or transport helicopters?

Most of the world seems to think a harrier platform is an aircraft carrier, at least for bragging rights. I think the French still have some real aircraft carriers.

WX
03-20-2011, 12:33 AM
No angled decks, all those are some sort of helo op platforms , more than likely used to move ground troops , Marines via Helicopter. They all , that I can make out, have USA flags.

So much for "The USA will not provide ground troops!" Or words to that effect. Pres O full of surprises isn't he!
Yep I think you're right, I'm sure those ships are just bursting at the seams with gung ho grunts just waiting to storm up a beach shouting hut hut hut.

Paul Girouard
03-20-2011, 12:34 AM
Aircraft carried: Actual mix depends upon the mission[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship#cite_note-1)



Most of the world seems to think a harrier platform is an aircraft carrier, at least for bragging rights. I think the French still have some real aircraft carriers.



They can think what they want , just cuz you can launch a Harrier doesn't make the ship a carrier in my book.


I'm not sure we/ US has any Harrier's left in operation, maybe a hand full with Marine pilot's maybe??

Paul Girouard
03-20-2011, 12:44 AM
Apparently the USMC still has 126 Harrier's in operation as of 2010.

Those ships appear to be LHD's Like USS Essex LHD -2 She's more than likely one in that group you posted.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/USS_Essex_at_sea.jpg/300px-USS_Essex_at_sea.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Essex_at_sea.jpg)

Dutch
03-20-2011, 10:40 AM
the chimp strikes again

http://www.newworldorderwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/bush-obama.jpg

johnw
03-20-2011, 10:46 AM
Apparently the USMC still has 126 Harrier's in operation as of 2010.

Those ships appear to be LHD's Like USS Essex LHD -2 She's more than likely one in that group you posted.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/USS_Essex_at_sea.jpg/300px-USS_Essex_at_sea.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Essex_at_sea.jpg)
Until the Harriers are replaced by the F-35, we've pretty much got to keep some in the inventory.

Osborne Russell
03-20-2011, 11:33 AM
Maybe the Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to declare war and conclude peace.

I wish there were a way to enforce it. As I understand things, all you can do is wait until the next election and hope the incumbents are replaced by more responsible representatives. Meantime the war can be won, lost, anything.

One possiblity would be to shorten the terms, but that makes the government even more prone to gridlock.

Boatsmith
03-20-2011, 04:10 PM
Is this going to be U.S. Policy from now on? Or do we only take sides and intervene in a civil war when it is an oil-producing state? If so, why have we not proposed military action against the Bahrain and Saudi-Arabian despots who are killing civilians?

What nonsense.
As in what would we have done if Kuwait's man export was broccoli?

Boatsmith
03-20-2011, 04:24 PM
The ultimate goal being security in supply of high grade oil.
This debacle is costing us how much? How many solar panels would that pay for? One solar panel breeds haw many more fanatics? How many for one cruise missle? I for one am sick and tired of paying for wars to support our oil habits. It's like Crissie Hines sung a while back; never leave an addict alone with your television.

Boatsmith
03-20-2011, 04:26 PM
I'll simplify it for you, peb. The USA should only engage in military action in defense of the USA.

And US military action should only occur with Congressional authorization.


Right on

PeterSibley
03-20-2011, 04:44 PM
No , this time Obama had UN approval .A big difference .
the chimp strikes again

http://www.newworldorderwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/bush-obama.jpg

WX
03-20-2011, 04:56 PM
Looks like I was misinformed, US strike aircraft and bombers are involved.

Coalition forces



US: Cruise missiles fired from USS Barry and USS Stout; amphibious warships, submarines and command-and-control ship USS Mount Whitney. Air strikes by fighter jets and B-2 stealth bombers
France: Air strikes by Mirage fighters and Rafale jets; Awacs surveillance plane; Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier sailing
UK: Missiles fired from submarines; Typhoon and Tornado jet fighters; surveillance planes; HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland; Using Akrotiri military base in Cyprus
Italy: Nato base at Naples understood to be central hub; other Mediterranean bases made available
Canada: Six F-18 fighter jets and 140 personnel
Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Qatar Spain, ready to participate

johnw
03-21-2011, 01:33 PM
So far, it looks like the Harriers are the aircraft coming off those amphibious assault ships.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-21-2011, 03:13 PM
These diplomatic cables may help explain why France was so eager to get involved.

http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article4054075.ece


CLASSIFIED BY: Gene Cretz, Ambassador, Embassy Tripoli, U.S. Department of State. REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 1. (C/NF) Summary: Libya´s National Oil Corporation (NOC) renegotiated the terms of its production sharing agreements with France´s Total and its partners in Libya (Germany´s Wintershall and Norway´s StatoilHydro), adjusting the existing stand-alone contracts to bring them into compliance with the Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement (EPSA) rubric. The renegotiation of Total´s contract is of a piece with the NOC´s effort to renegotiate existing contracts to increase the Libya´s share of crude oil production. An interesting corollary is that one of the affected fields is that from which Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi, periodically obtains oil lifts, which he sells to finance his various activities.