/FLASH// US Navy attacks and destroys Libyan Warships
 

A USN P-3 destroys a patrol ship while a USAF A-10 goes in for the kill on two smaller craft. The target of the P-3 was a Libyan patrol boat much like this one:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3508/7pv30.jpg

Aim like sitting duck..

Ok I have to say, I am confused, are they enforcing a no fly zone or what? Those don't look like anti-air assets to me, and has nothing to do with the ground war (which last I heard was not happening at sea).

They were attacking ships in Misrata:

Its was reported that a ship carrying relief supplies pulled in to Misrata after those SSM sites were taken out.

Which still has nothing to do with enforcing a no fly zone.

It has not been about enforcing a NFZ since the UN resolution was made. The NFZ is just the usual smoke and mirrors. You need to move on and think about what's coming next. Take a look at the London conference.

Agreed. The US is clearly stepping up it's involvement in Lybia; something that I am not comfortable with given our track record in the region.

Could this event have been perceived as a provocation against the U.S. and its allies at sea?

The No-Fly Zone has been getting all the press, but UN Resolution 1973 also authorizes a naval blockade and arms embargo. NATO has naval vessels and aircraft offshore to enforce the blockade.

Isn'T it simply unimportant what the UN and resolutions and NATO statements claim to allow, to legitimate and to intend? The actions shows us the participating parties try to kill Gaddafi in person, and to militarily enforce regime change - I think that is obvious by recent days activities.

I am surprised that they really try that now, after that long hesitation of theirs, and the late beginning of the air raids I complained about in another thread. Either I was wrong from th ebeginning on, and along with me some others here as well, or something has changed in some nations' basic attitude since then.

It'S just that the situation of our information status also has changed, and we meanwhile have collected hints that our uncertainty about the rebels' nature, idenity and intention has to be replaced with some certainty that at least some of them cooperate with Al Quaeda. Which means my hopes have been unjustified.

But however, leaving Gaddafi in place is a totally unacceptabler option now, the rebels do not tolerate it, and we cannot allow it as well - too often he has treated us like s##t. And that is why we shall not support Erdoghan's attempt to mediate a seize fire and leave Gaddafi in power by a deal with the rebels, by which the Turks try to install themselves as the great shining exmaple again for Islamic countries, nor shall we listen to the Russians demanding to stop cracking down on Gaddafi'S troops.

The regime must be destroyed now, no matter what. We have entered that stage of the game, and we cannot simply exit now.

That is all we need to know currently.

Whether we want to do business with the government coming after Gaddafi, is something we currently can no longer take into account. We deal with that question when the time has come.

I agree with Sky there. The worst thing "we" (i.e. the western coalition/NATO) could do now is bail and leave the situation deadlocked or worse. Once you're in something, finish the job. If you don't, everyone will be a lot worse for it in the end.

Snag is...what if the rebels can't make progress even with Allied air support? They've been bounced from Sirte, Misrata and Bin Jawad, if they can't do it with what they have, then you just know that the US will start giving them weapons to do it with, and if that doesn't work, then it'll be time for boots on the ground.

The UN resolution went much further than the NLZ-L. People just call it a No Fly Zone because that is the lingo that was out in public before the resolution was passed.

I agree with you. Bottom line is, the UN declared war on Lybia. War is war, war is hell. War should be an all or nothing decision. Limited with rules is nothing more than pacification of the media and those who read it.

The main difference here is the powers to be found a way to burn up the expensive beans and bullets that keep our worldwide military industrial complex funded, while not risking any ground troops and leaving that to "the rebels". Elected leaders pacifying their constituents so they don't have to have their own sons and daughters come home in a body bag and have it broadcasted on 100 media channels.

What kind of crap is that? No matter what they call it, they declared war on Lybia and we get the bill.

If you really give it some thought, look through history, we always have to have an enemy, always have to have a war, and always have to have one on the horizon (currently North Korea and Iran) and a way to feed our production of the weapons of war.

If you think the housing bubble hurt the global economy, just think about what would happen if we weren't building the weapons of war. The entire world economy would collapse. Maybe that's what we need, a wakeup call from hell.

Man, I wish I could point out some point where you're wrong.


But I surehell can't.


As to funding the rebels, one has only to look at the situation in Afghanistan in the 80's. How's that worked out for us?