"Libyan air forces destroyed" - British commander

"Libyan air forces destroyed" - British commander

rt.com

A senior British commander claims that allied forces have destroyed the Libyan air force and are flying with impunity across its airspace, attacking ground troops wherever they threaten the civilian population.
"Effectively, their air force no longer exists as a fighting force, and his integrated air defense system and command and control networks are severely degraded to the point that we can operate with near impunity across Libya," Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell said as quoted by Reuters."We are now applying sustained and unrelenting pressure on the Libyan armed forces."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, if the airforce is destroyed, then dosen't that mean the mission is complete? Of course not, since those who are in charge have debated on the meaning of what the U.N 1973 resolution means. Accoring to them, they can do anything. This has turned from a no fly zone, to a no drive zone, to a no walk zone. It is apparent, that the intentions are no longer and have never been to protect the civilians, but rather to oust Qaddafi.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You should read what the resolution actually says - it is not now, and never was, solely about a no-fly zone - that's just the simplistic bit.

17 March 2011 – The Security Council today effectively authorized the use of force in Libya to protect civilians from attack,

tha's th first sentence on the announcement from the UN media centre - www.un.org...

The no-fly zone isn't mentioned until the 4th paragraph.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant


Well, if the airforce is destroyed, then dosen't that mean the mission is complete? Of course not, since those who are in charge have debated on the meaning of what the U.N 1973 resolution means. Accoring to them, they can do anything. This has turned from a no fly zone, to a no drive zone, to a no walk zone. It is apparent, that the intentions are no longer and have never been to protect the civilians, but rather to oust Qaddafi.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mission Complete! says Obama , clad in a leather jacket in a suprise visit to a aircraft carrier .Sound familiar ?
You are dead right in your view OP and no I don't think that they will leave at least until they are forced out .

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You should read what the resolution actually says - it is not now, and never was, solely about a no-fly zone - that's just the simplistic bit.

True, but most didn't read the actual resolution.
They just listened to their leaders who obviously LIED as usual..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You should read what the resolution actually says - it is not now, and never was, solely about a no-fly zone - that's just the simplistic bit.

True, but most didn't read the actual resolution.
They just listened to their leaders who obviously LIED as usual..

About what?

The resolution clearly says that force is to be used to "protect civilians" - I find my self leaning to the idea that that means tanks and artillery can be attacked if they are attacking civilian areas. Did someone lie about that??

No one's lied about it, it's been right there in the UN resolution from the start.

I don't doubt that there may be some hidden agenda, however they're not breaching the UN resolution by attacking Libyan forces that are attacking civilians with heavy weapons.

If I were in a revolution against a dictator, armed with small arms and fighting against tanks, you can bet your ass I'd be grateful for some top cover!

Well if they have nothing to fly with, the no-fly zone is a fact. Unless they are going to count kites too.

You guys are kidding..
The politicians in the US stated they were just there to create the no fly zone..

Yes, the resolution stated more but that's not what the public was told..

Please show me a politician saying they were going to do anything more..

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


This isn't about the resoloution. It is about the fact that officials and governing powers stated to the public they were there to impose a no-fly zone. In my opinion, the U.N resolution is far to broad.

Theoretically the Unites States cannot go to war without congressional approval. The UN is not supposed to be in the business of regime change by its own charter and the commanders seemed to be be as confused about the mission as everyone else given their contradictory statements. I find it interesting that on day one every supporting this war said "sure its a no-fly zone, but we have to support the people" and now its "its never been a no-fly zone". I guess the talking point memo got circulated this morning?

I was going to post a bunch of external text but this page actually summarizes all it in an excellent way.

US And EU Leaders Violate UN Libya Mandate

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Didn't one of the US Chiefs of Staff come out and say, when the possibility of a No Fly Zone was first discussed, that a No Fly zone would require a first strike to neutralise the air defences?

I'm hunting for the article just now...............

As an after thought, It was definitely reported in the UK as being a No Fly Zone resolution, with the addition of 'any action required' (short of putting troops on the ground) to protect the civilian populace.

If you guys were lied to over this, then that really sucks!