No Fly Zone Approved by UN

[ApacheIP]

While not surprising, I hope it achieves the desired result. Whatever that may be. Kinda wondering if France will be as involved as they are currently posturing.


Mar 17, 8:08 PM EDT


UN approves no-fly zone over Libya

By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press


AP UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council voted Thursday to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces, hours after the Libyan leader vowed to crush the rebellion with a final assault on the opposition capital of Benghazi.

The U.N. vote paved the way for possible international air strikes on Gadhafi's advancing military and reflected the past week's swift reversal of the situation in Libya, where once-confident rebels are now in danger of being obliterated by an overpowering pro-Gadhafi force using rockets, artillery, tanks, warplanes. That force has advanced along the Mediterranean coast aiming to recapture the rebel-held eastern half of Libya.

More here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[Paslode]

Rising fuel costs could go a long way toward advancing Obama's "Win the Future" vision of an economy remade by green technologies

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1037244553.htm

[incarcerated]

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/d...an-no-fly-zone

Air Force: F-22 expected to be used in 'early days' of any Libyan no-fly zone

By John T. Bennett - 03/17/11 11:55 AM ET
The Air Force's super-stealthy F-22 Raptor fighters likely would see their first combat action if a no-fly zone is set up by the U.S. and its allies over Libya, a senior defense official said Thursday.

Under questioning from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said it would be his "expectation" that F-22 fighters "would be in use" during "the early days" of a no-fly zone mission.

[cback0220]

I doubt too many Libyan fighters will be taking off now.

[Wiseman]

Originally Posted by cback0220

I doubt too many Libyan fighters will be taking off now.

I think they will be taking off just because they will not be told that the fly-zone has been enforced. Their only warning will be seeing F-22s coming their way when it is already too late.

[ZonieDiver]

Too little, too late - if you want to accomplish something (not that I do), what is needed now is a 'No Armor Zone'!

[ES 96]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

From what I've read of the F-22, pilots don't even know it is there, not until a missile is coming at them anyway. The F-15 pilots who go up against it say they go up, die, go up again, die, go up again, die

When I read that linked article on possible F-22 utilization around Libya, I just get the image of a Red-tailed Hawk going after live prey in the wild for it's first time rather than being fed in captivity... a very happy bird..

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I do not get the Democrats' obsession with "green" technology. Electric cars, wind power, solar power, and trains are a bunch of ideological and pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Until you can power a city with wind or solar, it isn't workable. The only reason the Left are so obsessed with trains, and I think this is subonscious on their part, but because trains represent another form of social control.

Baby steps, gotta crawl before you can walk, or as they say in Oceans Eleven, "you gotta walk before you can crawl".

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I do not get the Democrats' obsession with "green" technology. Electric cars, wind power, solar power, and trains are a bunch of ideological and pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Until you can power a city with wind or solar, it isn't workable. The only reason the Left are so obsessed with trains, and I think this is subonscious on their part, but because trains represent another form of social control.

Letting people drive autos, and big gas-guzzler SUVs and pickups at that, goes against that whole mindset of social control. Autos represent freedom. People get in them and drive wherever they want, whenever they want, and do not answer to the government at all. Trains, on the other hand, go where the government designs the track, and run on the government's schedule.

High-speed rail is not profitable in Europe, the trains are subsidized, and the most unprofitable lines are shut down. The trains are able to still function in Europe however due to:

1) Europe doesn't have a highway system like our Interstate Highway System (thanks to Eisenhower).

2) Europe has a lot more population concentration. Subsidized high-speed rail could maybe work in the Northeastern part of America, but the progressives' dreams of a national network of high-speed trains is not going to work and will just cost states more money than they can afford.

$9 a gallon gasoline, just what we want What does he mean, somehow? The solution is simple. Implement a high enough VAT tax or raise the fuel tax. Then in addition to hurting the economy and curtailing people's freedom in the name of protecting us, the government will have even more money to spend us further into debt and deficit. Of course, Chu is a staunch believer in global warming, so he is all for regulation of society in this sense.

One thing the Progressives cannot stand is people having access to cheap energy and thus large vehicles. They want people to have to take public transportation in the cities and high-speed rail inbetween the cities, and they want people to only be able to afford the cars they think the people should drive.

I would say that many parts of Europe have a better highway system than our interstate system. I've driven the Autobahns/Autoroutes/Autostradas from Sweden to Italy and from Normandy to Bratislava. The roads are nice in most places and the rest stops clean. Also, especially in France (but not in central Germany), the roads are often not that crowded, because of that nice expensive gas.

France's Autoroutes are also underutilized because they are mostly toll roads. When time is not an issue, I prefer the national and departmental routes because they are cheaper and you can see more history driving through the countryside and villages.

One other big factor about rail besides those you mention: the heavy gas tax and other subsidies for passenger rail aren't just at the expense of POV driving. They are also at the expense of freight. Rail accounts for around 40% of US freight traffic but less than 8% in Europe. Diesel-fume spewing semis pack Europe's highways. Some stretches, like the A3 east of Frankfurt, grind to a halt all the time. The hilly forests of the Spessart between Aschaffenburg and Würzburg are especially bad. The A8 by Stuttgart also gets bad.

That's a big part of the reason why high-speed rail is being pushed in the least needed places. The high-population density NE corridor, which could conceivably provide the passenger volumes to support it, doesn't have anywhere to put new tracks without buying, condemning, appropriating and destroying a lot of real estate already in use. So most passenger rail traffic shares the tracks with freight traffic and is subject to the same speed limits (my few trips on Amtrak's Acela from New York have been agonizingly slow).

So you get the ridiculous only-government-can-be-so-stupid approach of trying to build high-speed rail where you can build it rather than where you should (assuming you wanted it).

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by ApacheIP

While not surprising, I hope it achieves the desired result. Whatever that may be. Kinda wondering if France will be as involved as they are currently posturing.

Current reports mention France, Britain and Norway as preparing for possible strikes. I would assume Italy and the United States would have to be involved, given the base situation. Maybe Egypt and Tunisia could provide support, since the Arab League is on board. Idle speculation on my part at this point.

One aspect of the no-fly zone I'm not sure about: does it also ground rebel forces? I saw a recent report on al-Jazeerah where 3 Libyan naval craft were shelling a rebel-held city and rebel helicopters claimed to have sank two and driven the other away. It would be bad if the no-fly zone just gave Qadhdhafi's tanks and artillery an edge even with the loss of his airpower advantage.

There was also a report yesterday of a Libyan Air Force pilot taking off and dropping his ordnance on his own airstrip and then making a kamikaze attack on one of Qadhdhafi's command centers.

[Richard]

I do not understand how posts # 2, 9, 10, and 11 are relevant to the topic of this discussion on the Libyan situation and a "No Fly Zone Approved by UN"...am I missing some point to those posts in here?

Richard

[Richard]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Too little, too late - if you want to accomplish something (not that I do), what is needed now is a 'No Armor Zone'!

Yep...while Rome burns...

Richard

Libyan Forces Attack Last Rebel-held Western City
AP, 18 Mar 2011

Moammar Gadhafi's forces are bombarding the last rebel-held western city as the international community discusses how to enforce a no-fly zone and protect the Libyan people.

A doctor says at least six people were killed Friday when tanks moved into Misrata and opened fire. He says a hospital and a mosque were shelled.

The doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals, says the tanks then pulled back to the outskirts of the city.

Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of Tripoli, has been sealed off by Gadhafi troops in a blockade that has cut off most water and food supplies for days.

Rebels fighting to oust the longtime Libyan leader are on the defensive in their eastern stronghold.

Moammar Gadhafi's regime defiantly closed Libya's airspace to all traffic while the West made plans to enforce a no-fly zone and prevent his forces from attacking rebels after the U.N. authorized "all necessary measures" to protect the Libyan people, including airstrikes.

The U.N. Security Council resolution was approved late Thursday with the backing of the United States, France and Britain, hours after Gadhafi vowed to launch a final assault and crush the nearly 5-week-old rebellion against him.

President Barack Obama telephoned the leaders of Britain and France after the vote, the White House said. U.S. officials speaking after a closed-door briefing in Congress said the attempt to ground Gadhafi's air force could begin by Sunday or Monday with the use of jet fighters, bombers and surveillance aircraft.

The British Cabinet held an emergency meeting as British planes were expected to take part in the international military action. NATO envoys in Brussels also were considering next steps.

Military experts cautioned that the consequences of such action are unpredictable. The former head of the British army, Richard Dannatt, said it was crucial to proceed cautiously "so we don't get into the kind of situation that we got into in Iraq by not having a Plan B for the morning after."

But the Western powers faced pressure to act urgently after weeks spent deliberation over what to do about Gadhafi as his regime gained momentum.

Gadhafi, calling in to Libyan television on Thursday, said his forces would "rescue" the people of Benghazi, the eastern Mediterranean port city that has become the de-facto rebel capital and staging ground. For those who resist, Gadhafi said, there would be "no mercy or compassion."

"This is your happy day, we will destroy your enemies," he said, warning the people of Benghazi not to stand alongside the opposition. "Prepare for this moment to get rid of the traitors. Tomorrow we will show the world, to see if the city is one of traitors or heroes."

Gadhafi also pledged to respond harshly to U.N.-sponsored attacks in an interview with Portuguese television broadcast just before the vote. "If the world is crazy," he said, "we will be crazy, too."

His ground forces were about 80 miles (130 kilometers) south of the city on Thursday evening, so it was unclear whether they would move on the city as quickly as he suggested.

A large crowd in Benghazi was watching the vote on an outdoor TV projection and burst into cheers, with green and red fireworks exploding overhead. In Tobruk, east of Benghazi, happy Libyans fired weapons in the air to celebrate the vote.

Europe's air traffic control agency, Eurocontrol, said Friday that "the latest information from Malta indicates that Tripoli (air control center) does not accept traffic."

The Brussels-based agency had no information on how long Libya's airspace would be closed but said it had halted all air traffic to Libya for 24 hours.

Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim struck a more conciliatory tone, offering to negotiate a cease-fire with the rebels. He welcomed the Security Council's concern for the people of Libya but called on the world not to allow them to receive weapons. "If any countries do that, they will be inviting Libyans to kill each other," he said.

In Tripoli on Friday, foreign journalists were barred from leaving their hotel.

The shift toward international action reflected dramatic change on the ground in Libya in the past week. The rebels, once confident, found themselves in danger of being crushed by an overpowering pro-Gadhafi force using rockets, artillery, tanks, warplanes. That force has advanced along the Mediterranean coast aiming to recapture the rebel-held eastern half of Libya.

Gadhafi troops encircled the city of Ajdabiya, the first in the path of their march, but also had some troops positioned beyond it toward Benghazi.

The unrest in Libya began Feb. 15 in the eastern city of Benghazi and spread east to Tripoli, the capital. Like others in the Mideast, the protest started with popular demonstrations against Gadhafi, rejecting his four decades of despotic and often brutal rule. The tone quickly changed after Gadhafi's security in Tripoli forcefully put down the gatherings there.

Soon rebel forces began arming themselves, quickly taking control of the country's east centered on Benghazi, the second largest Libyan city, with a population of about 700,000. Some Libyan army units joined the rebels, providing them with some firepower, but much less than Gadhafi's remaining forces, and crucially, no air power.

There are no official death tolls. Rebels say more than 1,000 people have been killed in a month of fighting, while Gadhafi claims the toll is only 150.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/...re_af/af_libya

[LarryW]

Too little, too late - if you want to accomplish something (not that I do), what is needed now is a 'No Armor Zone'!

Agree! Zero in on the Gadhafi brothers while you're at it. (Pigs in a blanket.)

[echoes]

Just saw this crossing the newsdesk at Fox... Hmmmmm? Wonder if this is for real, or if Kadafi is trying to buy some time???

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/0...res-ceasefire/

Libya Declares Ceasefire

Fox and Friends 7:55 am on March 18, 2011

EmailAlisyn Camerota just reported that Libya’s foreign minister has declared an immediate halt to military action on anti-government forces to ‘take the country back to safety and security for all Libyans’.

Stay tuned to Fox News Channel for the latest.

[Romeo23]

Originally Posted by echoes

Just saw this crossing the newsdesk at Fox... Hmmmmm? Wonder if this is for real, or if Kadafi is trying to buy some time???

Sounds like Gaddafi is rethinking his strategy.

Perhaps the first of the UN backed jets are rolling overhead?

R