GlobalSecurity.org Forums - Security, Defense, and Military Discussion Jobs White Papers Bookstore
Reliable Security Information
Loading

View Poll Results: Should the NATO powers expand support for the Libyan rebels?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they should provide more support for the rebels

    3 60.00%
  • No, the current strategy is sufficient to eventually remove Qaddafi

    2 40.00%
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Should the NATO powers expand support for the Libyan rebels?

  1. #1
    Senior Administrator Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec
    Posts
    60
    Country: United States

    Default Should the NATO powers expand support for the Libyan rebels?

    Should NATO extend its support for the removal of Qaddafi?

    The current position of the NATO powers involved in action against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi is that of one restriction action to mainly airstrikes and covert actions.

    For the past several weeks, the rebels have alternated between advancing toward Tripoli and retreating back toward Benghazi. Poorly armed relative to Qaddafi's forces, with weak logistical capabilities, is more action necessary on the part of the NATO powers to remove Qaddafi and his regime from power?

    Should the NATO powers send ground forces into Libya (other than special forces and intelligence currently operating)? Should they provide arms to the rebels? Step up airstrikes and/or target Qaddafi directly?

    Or should the NATO powers continue on their current strategy of airstrikes and limited covert action in support of the Libyan rebels?

    Cast your vote and explain what you think the best policy is?
    Administrator - Defence Forum of India
    Facebook: Thijs Wikje (pseudonym)

  2. #2
    Registered Member Sailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    104
    Country: Australia

    Default

    Yeah well since when did NATO, the US or the West in general get any thanks from helping any nations in the Middle East except Israel.
    Remember the West are all infidels in the end and their powers are to be used only to further Islam then be thrown aside.
    Just look what happened in Iraq. How much thanks did Mums and Dads of allied soldiers who were killed get? Zero.
    Look what is happening in Afghanistan. Oh wow, the West is helping us against the Taliban. Soon as the West's soldiers leave, their women will be whipped again publicly by religious police.
    There are a lot of female soldiers in the US military who think that their sisters in Afghanistan need saving from slavery, but I have never seen any evidence that it was fruitful. They don't want to be saved.
    NATO spelt out a moral pathway. Kill civilians and get punished. But they aren't there to win a war for the ungrateful.
    Every bullet and bomb fired by the West's planes is paid for by taxpayers somewhere. There are no free lunches.
    Last edited by Sailor; 04-02-2011 at 09:46 AM.

  3. #3
    Registered Member Generalissima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South-West / Germany
    Posts
    477
    Country: Croatia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Yeah well since when did NATO, the US or the West in general get any thanks from helping any nations in the Middle East except Israel. ..
    good question..

    By reading this announcement of Hillary Clinton, I ask myself..

    How can she bring up "such" a comparison as for an example to back up any strategy.. ???

    Clinton compares Libya campaign to 1999 Kosovo

    (AFP) – 10 hours ago
    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for patience in judging the NATO campaign in Libya, comparing it to the 1999 Kosovo intervention that ended up ousting Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

    "We've been at this a relatively short period of time," Clinton said. "I would remind you that the United States and other partners bombed targets in Serbia for 78 days."

    In 1999, a NATO operation was launched to push forces loyal to the former Yugoslav president out of the province of Kosovo, where they led a campaign against separatist Kosovar Albanians.

    Clinton said the campaign was a success in protecting Kosovars, but Milosevic remained in power.

    "But," Clinton said, "there had been a dynamic put into motion that eventually led to his being in The Hague," before an international criminal court.

    Milosevic was accused of crimes against humanity. He died before completion of his trial.

    On Libya, Clinton said strikes on the city of Misrata represent an "inhumanity" by forces loyal to leader Moamer Kadhafi. Regime forces, she said, are "engaged in activities that are deplorable and which target directly civilians."

    "But the opposition fighters are holding their own against that onslaught," she added, attributing that in part to the NATO action.

    Clinton added that, "There are even reports that Kadhafi's forces may have used cluster bombs against their own people."

    Human Rights Watch on April 15 condemned what it said was the use of cluster bombs the night before by Kadhafi forces on residential areas of Misrata.

    Also Thursday, Clinton and Uri Rosenthal, the Dutch minister of foreign affairs, discussed "ways to put more of a financial pressure on Kadhafi's regime," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.

    Most governments have frozen bank accounts held by Kadhafi and his family.
    Copyright 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More

  4. #4
    Registered Member Generalissima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South-West / Germany
    Posts
    477
    Country: Croatia

    Default

    Russia's foreign minister has criticized the way the UN resolution on Libya is being implemented, in the wake of NATO's 90-day extension of its mission there. Sergey Lavrov says NATO's actions go beyond the scope of the resolution and undermine international law. According to Michel Chossudovsky from the Canadian-based Center for Research on Globalization, there are clear signs that we might soon see American boots touch Libyan soil.


  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3
    Country: Canada

    Default I'm in favor...

    Of NATO expanding support for the Libyan rebels, but I want it done right boys. Smooth and clean. As little collateral damage as possible, and as many peaceful solutions as possible....
    =)
    I have this funny feeling the rebels won't need that much help, but giving them a hand is a noble act.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    United States of America - midwest
    Posts
    4
    Country: United States

    Default So what happens now?

    The situation in Libya has evolved from a civil war to a new nation that has executed the leader Muhammar Quadaffi by the roadside as he fled Sirte, his last stronghold with his mercenaries in a vehicle convoy. I think that strategically we have to ask what happens now to all of the military arms that used to be in the hands of the Quadaffi military and civil regime. There are up to 30,000 shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, like stinger missiles used so effectively against the soviets, unsecured In Libya at this time. That is the news I am getting. This poses a clear and present danger from Islamic extremists who make up at least some of the people In Libya today.

    What is to prevent them from approaching one of these sites that journalists have been to and filmed since the end of the war this last month of October 2011 and these unsecured munitions and taking them over to Jerusalem or the west bank town of hebron lets say and shooting down and el al airliner this afternoon? A task force to specifically secure weapons would be a great mission about now for NATO led by the french who insisted on this action. We should be aware of this threat to aircraft.
    Last edited by alex stewart; 11-10-2011 at 01:04 PM. Reason: typo

  7. #7
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    everywhere ****er
    Posts
    177
    Country: United States

    Default

    The current government is in transition after the death of Muhammar Khadaffi at his final stand leaving Sirte. I write this January 16th, 2012. The issue at hand is the securing of former Libyan Army portable anti aircraft weapons numbering in the thousands. There was at least one organization trying to account for them but I am wondering if any were sold to terrorists to bring down helpless civilian aircraft. What is happening with this potentially huge problem? This thread originally shared a poll to see if NATO under French urging should commit to troops. Guess not de facto, also what protections are there for former members and civil allies of the regime? Would the UN be the right group to restore free elections, civil secular or sharia society organisations to allow return of egyptian workers to run the oil fields and the like for the newly freed people?

  8. #8
    Registered Member Spoooony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    46
    Country: South Africa

    Default

    164 Days. 164 Days! It was more bragging about the gear and equipment their country have than paying attention to the task at hand.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts