Skip to comments.NATO Discusses Ground Operation, Libya Promises Hell
Posted on 05/07/2011 9:29:44 AM PDT by Fennie
The aerial bombardment of Libya has reached a dead end, which has intensified talk among NATO members about a possible land operation, a move that threatens to escalate massively the violence that already exists there.
The alliance's spokesman has admitted there is still little sign of progress for either side in the conflict, so there is a need for a new UN resolution to approve sending foreign troops in. In the meantime, civilian casualties from allied bombing continue to mount as fresh NATO air strikes have been heard in the Libyan capital overnight.
At a video conference with Russian students, a NATO spokesman revealed his organization's proposed solution: send in ground troops.
"The UN Security Council should adopt a new resolution on Libya. Resolution 1973 does not envisage land operations. We need a new resolution," professed James Appathurai.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
When we went to war for real against Iraq, we took 6 months and amassed over 200,000 troops and support.
If NATO tries to simply send a few bridages in to help the rebels they will be destroyed by Libya. Libya has actually been going easy on the rebels because the rebels are using civilians as human shields. If NATO tries to join the rebels, and does so within their cities, that would be a war crime, and if they take up locations outside the cities, they will be destroyed.
Unless NATO starts with a massive carpet-bombing effort, which will kill thousands of civilians.
The aerial bombardment of Libya has reached a dead endThat has a tendency to happen when one bombs the wrong side too many times.
The Europeans have really dug themselves a deep hole.
The mission here is what exactly?
And how is this any different than what is happening in Syria, Yemen, and Zimbabwe?
Which NATO signatory was attacked by Serbia in the Balkans war?
Answer: None, but NATO attacked Serbia anyway.
Which NATO signatory was attacked on 9/11 and what was NATO's response?
Answer: The US was undeniably attacked on 9/11 by Afghanistan. There was some immediate military aid from the UK, Germany, and Canada. After the taliban government was unseated, American, Canadian and UK ground troops and special forces took up the fight in Afghanistan. Some other NATO nations sent token forces to the theater.
Which NATO signatory was recently attacked by Libya and what was NATO's response?
Answer: No NATO signatory was attacked, although an argument could be made that the US and Libya have been conducting a low level conflict since the 1980's. The largest "battle" was the destruction of a US flagged aircraft over Lockerbie. This was certainly an act of war. NATO finally responded years later with the US sending token forces.
Could someone explain to me what kind of alliance this is?
NATO would be well served to keep ground troops out of Libya.
They need to do a better job of identifying the enemy before their airstrikes.
Let me be the first on this thread ...
“It’s a quagmire! Get our troops out of the area immediately!!!!!”
You are correct, the tribes would then go to war, but the real question is what in the hell are we doing there illegally. The country mass killing its people is a good ways east. But then there is no oil there.
War with NATO over Libya is illegal.
“NATO discusses ground operation”
Let me translate that. NATO discusses sending in the American ground forces.
Thats right, Daffy played ball with USA and Obama bombed him anyway. Just like the rest of our Allies.
Also, Nato was a cold war defensive organization it has no business invading North Africa.
Nothing here that some cheap oil and a couple of suitcases full of $100 bills delivered to the democrat headquarters couldn’t solve.
And Obama’s encouraging them.
Libya is art of the plan for the NWO Arab Zone. They will do whatever they have to for the Muslim Brotherhood to run it.
NATO Discusses Ground Operation, Libya Promises Hell
Sadam H. said the same thing.
“...The US was undeniably attacked on 9/11 by Afghanistan...”
I disagree with your undeniable fact.
Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.
IMO, Syria is more important than Libya, yet nary a peep about Syria.
This is Libya for goodness sakes. How long does something like this take? If we were even going to get involved in something like this, it should have been done and dealt with by now.
Will the Germans send troops?
No, for obvious reasons.
Will the Italians send troops?
No, because Libya was a former Italian colony and nothing will unite all Libyans against NATO more than the return of Italian forces.
Will Britain send troops?
Yes, a token; because Britain just doesn’t have the forces to send.
Will France send forces?
Yes, but only a token; because France also now has only a tiny army.
Who is going to make up the bulk of any large-scale force?
(Hint: Dial 1-800-USA)
>They need to do a better job of identifying the enemy before their airstrikes.
In my opinion, if they are dropping bombs on the rebels then they are hitting the right targets. A rabid pack of jihadists, alkada and scumlim brotherhoods do not need our help.
I would hope kadaffy decimates these future terrorists and then he himself gets eliminated. IOW, let them fight it out.
Afghanistan didn’t attack the US on 9/11.
Afghanistan didn’t attack the US on 9/11.
If you`re talking about Saddam`s “mother of all battles” statement, it was when he faced a 540K - size international force, 420K of which came out of the U.S. hide. This go-round won`t even be a 20th of that size. There`s no mandate to push his forces out of an occupied zone. Gaddafi can speak a bit more accurately about delivering hell to a small invading force.
In 1991, the country got solidly behind Ops Desert Shield and Storm, because Americans knew the mission and supported it.
No one knows this mission.
The same way Warsaw Pact provided a fig leaf of multilateralism to USSR, NATO provides fig leaf of multilateralism to US.
NATO is US. Without US, NATO does not exist.
The purpose of NATO died 20 years ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and NATO should have died with it.
Instead, NATO created a new reason for it's continued existence by morphing into an aggressive force and becoming involved in the Balkans "for humanitarian reasons" (It's worthwhile here to recall H.L. Mencken's words: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"), even though no NATO country was ever attacked.
From that point on, NATO has been working off the books -- US led, with less respect for NATO's original charter than these same megalomaniacs have for the US Constitution.
In fact, all that NATO has become is a way for our executive branch to go renegade and use military force without the required Congressional permission. Clinton and GWB at least kept up the pretense of "consulting Congress". With Libya, Obama didn't even bother to pretend.
The continuation of NATO means that we the people are no longer represented in any manner in the decision for the US to go to war. The senior leadership of other countries like this too, because they don't want to have to ask permission from their constituents either on matters of war and peace. They'd rather just deal, leader to leader
IMHO, NATO has become the military arm of the corporate globalists to defend their global business interests -- answerable to no one but each other, yet sticking us with the bill for defending their (not our) interests.
Bob Beckel claimed more than a month ago that this would be over in a week.
All NATO is today is, a tap on the US treasury.
Whoa. All we needed to do before this little intervention was sit back, wait, and maybe air drop some ammo to whomever ran low...
If the MIC in the white Hut waffled about the OBL op, what is he doing even considering boots on the ground?
Beckel is a dedicated political foot soldier for the Left.
>> If the MIC in the white Hut...
Moron, mutant, megalomaniac, malfeasant?
Well, maybe..... It’s difficult to believe that the first announcement of such an important shift, would be via a “video conference with Russian students.”
I’d be dead set against ground troops in Libya. Since NATO doesn’t actually have any grounds forces, American soldiers and equipment would be used, along with other member countries - that must not happen. We are already in to deep as it is - Libya is not our problem, it’s a civil war and if we are their just because of oil - someone should go to jail for that decision as people are dying.
The Brits and Frogs have ample resources. The Frogs have a six brigade rapid reaction force. The Brits have, besides the Royal Marine Bde, 1st Para, the SAS/SRS Reg’ts., and at least one deployable Division in Germany. Libya is quite reachable from Europe and with Benghazi in rebel hands, no opposed landing would be necessary.As Q’adafy’s forces haven’t been able to crush the amateur rebels, I don’t think the pros of Britain and France would face much difficulty routing the Libyan forces. Of course if an Iraqi type insurgency were to develop I doubt the French and British populations have the staying power to put it down.
- I disagree with your undeniable fact.
Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.
Only in a highly technical sense. Al-Qaida operated freely in the country with the complete cooperation and support of the Afghan government, even though al Qaeda had already attacked the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole among other acts of war.
Essentially, Afghanistan DID attack the US, and more than once.
The mission is, get Obama Re-elected.
An entangling one...
We manage to KILL about 1,000,000 of OUR own potential citizens every year!
“They need to do a better job of identifying the enemy before their airstrikes.”
Seems like you could carpet bomb the whole place and not hit any wrong targets.
Where in earth did you get the idea that Qadaffi is going easy on the rebels. He has no motive for dragging this war out. It is Qadaffi’s troops who use civilian population areas as shields. How would NATO troops outside the cities be destroyed when we have air superiority? Where do you get your misinformation?
“Rebels” using civilians as human shields? Why am I not surprised? Now ground troops. Great. This’ll be another Vietnam, except it won’t rain as much. Funny how the Dems keep stepping in the same dog poop and learning nothing.
Someone re-ask the AnnointedIdiot about his alleged humanitarian operation and that it would be over “in days” in Libya..... =.=
Despite your claim that there is a need for NATO: radical Islam, NATO was a creation of the Cold War and was created to counter the Soviet Union. Even so, NATO is about as useful as the defunct, corrupt, and worthless UN....both of which have long outlived their purposes...hell, with out us, they cannot even beat themselves out of a wet paper bag ...remember, they could not even muster enough fighter bombers to bomb Libya...now they want to invade Libya? LOL! What a frakin’ joke. One could only hope that Qaddafi turned Libya into another Vietnam. We have NO BUSINESS being there or involved, period! =.=
George Soros and Bork Obunga are trying to perpetrate a bank robbery in broad daylight and using American military assets to do it.
Who in the world would agree to be part of this Army? Imean Money Talks, but a bunch of mercinaries?
I don’t even think Obama would ever approve ground troops. No way, no how.
This will be a quagmire...a slow and painful death for the rebels.
By July, Libya will have the complete control of the country. I expect too, that Libya will get lucky and hit a plane or two, and capture a pilot or two...