No-Fly Zone over Libya is a disastorous act of war

As many of you are aware, the UN security council recently approved a proposal to impose a no fly-zone over Libya.
News Link

It approved a resolution permitting "all necessary measures'' to impose a no-fly zone, protect civilian areas and impose a ceasefire on Gaddafi's military.

It seems iminent now, that foreign nations will intervene in soveriegn Libya. But is this a case of too little too late? Could this also be a case where it is against the people's best interest to intervene.
Debate for a no-fly zone has been ongoing, ever since air-strikes on Libyan civilians were first reported, the discussion, debate and planning for a no-fly zone has been underway. Now that the protests have transformed into a civil war has the approval for a no-fly zone come. This has come thanks to the persistance of France, the UK and Lebanon.
News Link

France and Britain are still pushing the UN Security Council to implement a no-fly zone over Libya to help rebels under assault from Moammar Qaddafi's forces, the French envoy to the UN said on Tuesday.

Well, whats so bad about a no-fly zone? Why, shouldn't the U.S and Nato do some good for once? Why shouldn't we extend our support to the people, aid in political reform and help bring democracy to our Libyan brothers and sisters?

Before I adress this question, I would like to go into depth over what imposing a no-fly zone over Libya would mean. The media and the politicians who advocate such actions have been bombarding us with this double-speak of a no-fly zone. Rarely have we seen or heard what the implications and the truth of carrying out such an action would mean.
News Link

THE UN Security Council has cleared the way for air strikes to halt Muammar Gaddafi's offensive against embattled rebel forces in Libya, with the first bombing raids possible within hours.

The relevance of this previous article is that in its wording, it shows what a no-fly zone really is. Don't be mistaken, imposing a fly-zone is a form of warfare.
Wiki Link

A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) is a territory over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky.

A no fly-zone isn't a bunch of neatly drawn lines, where planes aren't aloud to fly. In reality it dosen't work that way. A no-fly zone requires cripling certian infastructure including airstrips, airports and radar technology. To do this air-strikes must be carried out on Libya. This is an extremely difficult task to carry out. Often no-fly zones just don't work that well. You must analyse previous conflicts to understand how no-fly zones have previously failed
News Link

"There was a no-fly zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the Balkans conflict [which] took a while to get off the ground. It took three separate UN Security Council resolutions before there was a Chapter 7 operation in place where they could use force to put planes down," Mr Brown said.

A no-fly zone over Yugoslavia itself caused co-lateral damage. Although this was blamed on the Serbian military rather than NATO forces.

"The coalition forces lost four planes during that operation over several years. There were a number of instances of Serbian forces taking human shields to stop NATO air strikes, so it certainly wasn't a case of putting the planes up and that solving all the problems.

You may have also heard the term no-fly zone being thrown around prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Why don't no-fly zones work? It is not a fact, that they don't work all the time. No fly zones can work to an extent. But a no-fly over Libya involves costs that will far outweigh the benefits of implementing one. People seem to have the idea, that a no-fly zone over Libya is the be all and end all soloution to this crisis. The realistic fact is it isn't. It will do little to stop Qaddafi and his advancing army.
To understand this fully you must analyse the conflict in Libya from what news and information we can find.
The Libyan Army is fairly well equipt. They have heavy tanks, missiles and armoured viehicles. They have been involved in arm deals with the U.K and other Western powers. They have a well trained army, capable of taking on the rebels.
The Rebel Army

From what we can tell, the opposition force is composed of a largely rag-tag group of fighters. Most are irregulars with little to no training. Waging conventional warfare against Qaddafi is nearly impossible.

The unfortunate fact is, that a no-fly zone is not enough. The no-fly zone is an intervention with no commitment. Qaddafi has support of the majority of the armed forces. He is able to crush the Rebels without the aid of his planes, even though this may take longer. The no-fly zone achieves nothing. It is neither stopping Qaddafi nor reducing civillian deaths.
Hillary Clinton herself believes a no-fly zone isn't enough. She advocates a no drive zone. Now take into the back of your mind what that means. A no-drive zone isn't a bunch of neatly drawn lines where suddenly no viehicles will operate. A no-drive zone is a deeper commitment to militaristic intervention. It requires more air-strikes and aerial assualts. To some it may seem that Libya is heading closer and closer to an occupation.

Just to re-cap on why a no-fly zone shouldn't be carried out.
- It achieves little in stopping Qaddafi
- It involves to much co-lateral damage
- It is expensive to carry out and require numerous resources
- It is an intervention without commitment
- It just dosen't work that well

Well, we want the people of Libya to prevail. What can be done? Without commitment nothing much can be done. We do not want to invade another soveriegn nation. Yes Qaddafi has lost the legitamacy to rule, but it is up to the Libyan people to sort this out. What can be done, is military hard-ware could be supplied to the rebels to help them even the playing field. But that too, wouldn't achieve much. It is time to look at a combination of factors that could undermine the Qaddafi regime without much or any military intervention. This is an unfortunate altercation. We are with the people of Libya, we are with the people of Earth, but we must remain realists and see things for what they really are. The costs for a no-fly zone over Libya far outweigh the benefits. It is up to the people of Libya to achieve victory for themselves. It is also no business of a foreign state to interfere with a soveriegn state.

I would like to take into account your thoughts, opinions and information on this topic. So if you have any, feel free to share.

What do you think is going to happen when we let the man do his thing in Libia, how many people will feel his revenge? I know this is a war for oil, but this is the first time i feel that we have to help these people.

As a world we must act as a nation we are alone!

I mean if we let this run like we did in Yugoslavia?

Is that really what you want?

reply to post by sevensheeps


Unfortunately this is a difficult and complex situation. It is difficult to intervene in another country. The best soloution would also be the worst soloution, Invasion. Ultimately if we let "The Big Guy" do his thing, we'll see alot of bloodshed. But we'll also, most likely see some reform. These of course will be baby steps, like those that occoured in 1993. If America and NATO choose to intervene with occupation, then we could see another Iraq. A destabilized country, being stripped of it wealth and natrual resources and aiding in creating a hub for terrorism as people come to the realization of what an American occupation means. Eiher way America will get blamed, once again become even more hated, more bankrupt, cause more counter-productive action and step towards its own collapse. It is sad that the costs outweigh the benefits. As a government your first and foremost concern should be your people.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


hello there!! i see you've got a few MSM-flavored kool-aid drinkers.

i've been sharing the following links on all the Libya related threads 'cause a lot of people have been drinking the kool-aid on this one

Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi www.abovetopsecret.com...


Exclusive: Benghazi Explosion – Tactical Nuke Use By Gaddafi Suspected www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tactical BS more like it, it was the BS meter that actually exploded , later shown to be the bombing of a local arms depot/cache

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler The headline ought to read Tactical Nuke Use By Gaddafi Suspected by Donald Duck. The article seems to be making a case for that any explosion anywhere that either hurts or offends the sensibilities of Americans is a tactical nuke! The article also suggests the Oklahoma Bombing was a tactical nuclear device! Seems like yet another sensationalized accusation of the kind that gave us WMD in Iraq. Just a lot of unsubstantiated gibberish designed to enflame and anger people and get people here thinking about paying for another war for oil. How many times are the American people going to get fooled by the same old song and dance, wrap it in a flag, and have God bless it, and presto whamo American bombs start snuffing out 'collateral damage' everywhere.

Benghazi's importance to Libya and possibly the World:
also explains why Qaddafi has come down really harsh on these "rebels"

While many countries in the Middle East and North Africa bicker over water rights, Libya has tapped into an aquifer of 'fossil water' to change its topography – turning sand into soil. The 26-year, $20 billion project is nearly finished. …The Great Man-Made River, which is leader Muammar Qaddafi's ambitious answer to the country’s water problems, irrigates Libya’s large desert farms. The 2,333-mile network of pipes ferry water from four major underground aquifers in southern Libya to the northern population centers. Wells punctuate the water’s path, allowing farmers to utilize the water network in their fields. ... “Water is more precious for us than oil. ... Water here in Libya, it’s life.”

after all why would Qaddafi want to damage or destroy a 26-year, $20+ billion project that he considers his life's work?

Virtually unknown in the West: Libya's water resources. The real reason for toppling Quadaffi? www.abovetopsecret.com...


Libya: British plans to strip Gaddafi of oil revenue www.abovetopsecret.com...

Libya False Flag -part 1: Reuters Hoax EXPOSED www.abovetopsecret.com...
truthfrequencynews.com...
World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos www.informationclearinghouse.info...

How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.

Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.

The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is
Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.

Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?


Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya into chaos on February 17 of this year.

It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been opposed to Gadaffi's rule. It should be noted that the National Front for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this failed uprising.

Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent against the United States. This concept is called the United States of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has historically been divided into various tribal groups.

This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans. The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.

hope this will be of use.