Security Council accepts No Fly Zone
- Thread starter Durry
- Start date
Usually, when you go into a conflict where no one can agree on the rules of engagement, the reason they are there in the first place, or the objectives of the exercize.. you end up with the worst of all potential outcomes.. a open ended commitment to a stalemate. 
The US and France will eventually invade, set up a puppet government and court system, take over the oil fields, try Gadafhi for war crimes, execute him by firing squad and still be there spending billions of tax dollars 10 years from now. So except for the firing squad vs hanging it will be just like Saddam and Iraq
Absolutely correct - If they want him gone they have to whether they target him - or have the Arab league - Saudi offer him asylum - boots on the ground - or an fffn civil war that drags on.Usually, when you go into a conflict where no one can agree on the rules of engagement, the reason they are there in the first place, or the objectives of the exercize.. you end up with the worst of all potential outcomes.. a open ended commitment to a stalemate.
look to the Italians - Against it - nor on line with bases for support - wonder Berlusconni does not throw his neck out - but then again his ass is buried balls deep in gorgeous babes.
Im starting to wonder about our involvment here. Of course these people need our help but places like the Congo and Sudan have needed help like this for many many years and are still waiting.... i doubt its because thpse people are too black, there has to be another reason we arent there bombing the hell out of the bad guys in the Congo and Sudan.... Im all for helping the rebels who need more freedom but what about the rebels from elsewhere who are also fighting for freedom? Does the western world have more interests in Libya as compared to Sudan and the Congo??? It seems a little suspect, but its only instinct im going on.. I dont have proof to back my instincts...
Last edited:
captain morgan; said:
Better to have bad food than none at all. Still, people should smarten up by eating stuff from food stores, not that sh!t at McDonald's.
Yeah, what people don't know is that it is really Saddam who is running Libya right now, Gdaffy is on an island somewhere yanking his wire with his busty women friends^^!!
http://tunes.digitalock.com/PhantomoftheParadiseGoodbyeEddieGoodbye.mp3 <-- click to play
Clearly Canada cannot do that without 65 F-35s. It's a global crisis capable of threatening Israel.
By the way, I have a friend in the states, and down there they can ask who's invested in Lockheed-Martin and find out.
Everybody with the IQ above that of a salamander knows that what Canada needs is a dozen F-22s and a fleet of drones.
Hardy har har.
I said they would be good for patrol, and it was based upon having access to the German style modern dirigibles which got their funding pulled when existing manufacturers of overprices jets bought up controlling interest and shut the program down.
In any case, after having done some digging I think it would be better for Bombardier to build drones to do northern patrol.
As for running off Russians and Chinese pushing into northern airspace, F-22s would still be better for that job that are F-35s.
The Royal Navy is sending the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean to the Med, fully stocked with helicopters and other equipment.
Meanwhile, our lads and lasses in the RAF have commended the Eurofighter Typhoon on its great performance so far in the operation. The RAF has just because the first airforce to use those aircraft in combat (although that won't be difficult because the only other countries to have the aircraft are Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain and Saudi Arabia).
Meanwhile, our lads and lasses in the RAF have commended the Eurofighter Typhoon on its great performance so far in the operation. The RAF has just because the first airforce to use those aircraft in combat (although that won't be difficult because the only other countries to have the aircraft are Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain and Saudi Arabia).
Last edited: