Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Warspite1ORIGINAL: Mynok
ORIGINAL: sprior
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Warspite1
Lemon juice and sugar.....mmmm luverly.
+ 1
Erm...what is a 'pancake' to you islanders?
ORIGINAL: USS America
ORIGINAL: Mynok
You've never had Swedish pancakes CB? You who live in that bastion of Scandinavians called the Upper Midwest?
He has probably had it in a "hot dish." [:D]
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Cultural curiosity: what do you guys put on your pancakes?
ETA: butter and maple syrup would be the most common here. Fruit, jam or fruit compote would also be rather common.
ORIGINAL: Dixie
Curse the UN! [:@]
ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Dixie
Curse the UN! [:@]
Upset about the Libyan no-fly zone? [&:]
ORIGINAL: USS America
ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Dixie
Curse the UN! [:@]
Upset about the Libyan no-fly zone? [&:]
I have a feeling that Brother Dixie is about to become very busy at work for a while....
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Unlikely that fixed-wing FBs will challenge NATO-enforced no fly zones. Now, rotary wing ground support will be a bit more challenging to interdict...
Agreed. As usual with the UN - Too little, too late and the wrong setup. It's a political alibi, nothing else.ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Unlikely that fixed-wing FBs will challenge NATO-enforced no fly zones. Now, rotary wing ground support will be a bit more challenging to interdict...
I think this no-fly zone is a poor idea, arrived at too late. The Colonel can just keep his planes on the ground while his soldiers roll into Benghazi and Tobruk and kill the population off. What are we going to do then?
Airstrikes don't win a war, and since the UN resolution doesn't allow for ground troops, and the rebels are not powerful enough to go on the offensive and win for months (if not years), what is to be gained from intervening?
It's a bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Unlikely that fixed-wing FBs will challenge NATO-enforced no fly zones. Now, rotary wing ground support will be a bit more challenging to interdict...
I think this no-fly zone is a poor idea, arrived at too late. The Colonel can just keep his planes on the ground while his soldiers roll into Benghazi and Tobruk and kill the population off. What are we going to do then?
Airstrikes don't win a war, and since the UN resolution doesn't allow for ground troops, and the rebels are not powerful enough to go on the offensive and win for months (if not years), what is to be gained from intervening?
It's a bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Unlikely that fixed-wing FBs will challenge NATO-enforced no fly zones. Now, rotary wing ground support will be a bit more challenging to interdict...
I think this no-fly zone is a poor idea, arrived at too late. The Colonel can just keep his planes on the ground while his soldiers roll into Benghazi and Tobruk and kill the population off. What are we going to do then?
Airstrikes don't win a war, and since the UN resolution doesn't allow for ground troops, and the rebels are not powerful enough to go on the offensive and win for months (if not years), what is to be gained from intervening?
It's a bad idea.
Actually if you read the UN-resolution, you will notice that the mandate is a bit wider than that.ORIGINAL: Terminus
I think this no-fly zone is a poor idea, arrived at too late. The Colonel can just keep his planes on the ground while his soldiers roll into Benghazi and Tobruk and kill the population off. What are we going to do then?
My, such cynisism. Better to let Ghadaffi slaughter his own civilians? Airstrikes dont win a war you say? What happened in Kosovo then? And without the resolution, what would prevent Ghadaffi from just rolling over Bengazi like the Russians took Grozny? Heavy artillery for a couple of weeks and then the tanks roll in...what sort of humanitarian disaster do you think that would make? Not to mention the awful message it would send to the arab world.Airstrikes don't win a war, and since the UN resolution doesn't allow for ground troops, and the rebels are not powerful enough to go on the offensive and win for months (if not years), what is to be gained from intervening?
It's a bad idea.
What is the alternative? Just let all those people die?ORIGINAL: Dixie
So once again we're involved in someone else's war.
It's a bad idea, badly thought out.
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Unlikely that fixed-wing FBs will challenge NATO-enforced no fly zones. Now, rotary wing ground support will be a bit more challenging to interdict...
I think this no-fly zone is a poor idea, arrived at too late. The Colonel can just keep his planes on the ground while his soldiers roll into Benghazi and Tobruk and kill the population off. What are we going to do then?
Airstrikes don't win a war, and since the UN resolution doesn't allow for ground troops, and the rebels are not powerful enough to go on the offensive and win for months (if not years), what is to be gained from intervening?
It's a bad idea.
I think that you guys didn't read the actual resolution... thsi is not just "No Fly Zone"...
“Protection of civilians
“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Actually if you read the UN-resolution, you will notice that the mandate is a bit wider than that.ORIGINAL: Terminus
I think this no-fly zone is a poor idea, arrived at too late. The Colonel can just keep his planes on the ground while his soldiers roll into Benghazi and Tobruk and kill the population off. What are we going to do then?
First, it is a chapter 7 resolution, which means military force is allowed (perhaps that seems like a no-brainer for most, but it is important to point this out, because once chapter 7 has been opened, normal rules do not apply).
Second, the resolution authorizes member states “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi.
That means that while the resolution seems to be about a no-fly-zone, it is actually much much wider than that. This resolution authorizes anyone to go after any and all Ghadaffi forces.
My, such cynisism. Better to let Ghadaffi slaughter his own civilians? Airstrikes dont win a war you say? What happened in Kosovo then? And without the resolution, what would prevent Ghadaffi from just rolling over Bengazi like the Russians took Grozny? Heavy artillery for a couple of weeks and then the tanks roll in...what sort of humanitarian disaster do you think that would make? Not to mention the awful message it would send to the arab world.Airstrikes don't win a war, and since the UN resolution doesn't allow for ground troops, and the rebels are not powerful enough to go on the offensive and win for months (if not years), what is to be gained from intervening?
It's a bad idea.
Airstrikes might not have won wars in the ww2-era, but it sure as /&%# will prevent any offensive operations whatsoever by Ghadaffi.
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
What is the alternative? Just let all those people die?ORIGINAL: Dixie
So once again we're involved in someone else's war.
It's a bad idea, badly thought out.
We are talking about a rebellion against one of the worst dictators in the world. If we dont help, then who will? And more importantly, if we dont help, then what have we become?
