U.S., allies strike targets in Libya

[Laaloo]

WASHINGTON – U.S. and British ships and submarines launched the first phase of a missile assault on Libyan air defenses Saturday and a senior American defense official said it was believed substantial damage was inflicted. In the strikes, 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at more than 20 coastal targets to clear the way for air patrols to ground Libya's air force. While U.S. defense officials cautioned that it was too early to fully gauge the impact of the onslaught, the official said that given the precision targeting of the Navy's cruise missiles, they felt that Libya's air defenses suffered a good deal of damage. The official spoke on grounds of anonymity because the ongoing mission. In announcing the mission during a visit to Brazil, President Barack Obama said he was reluctant to resort to force but was convinced it was necessary to save the lives of civilians. He reiterated that he would not send American ground troops to Libya. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," he said in Brasilia. While U.S. defense officials said it was too early to gauge the impact of the onslaught, one senior official said that given the precision targeting of the Navy's cruise missiles, they believe Libya's air defenses suffered a good deal of damage. It was clear the U.S. intended to limit its role in the Libya intervention, focusing first on disabling or otherwise silencing Libyan air defenses, and then leaving it to European and perhaps Arab countries to enforce a no-fly zone over the North African nation. Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, told reporters the cruise missile assault was the "leading edge" of a coalition campaign dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn. Its aim: prevent Moammar Gadhafi's forces from inflicting more violence on civilians -- particularly in and around the rebel stronghold of Benghazi -- and degrading the Libyan military's ability to contest a no-fly zone. Click image to see photos of protests in Libya AFP/Patrick Baz "This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency." A chief target of Saturday's cruise missile attack was Libya's SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, which are considered a moderate threat to some allied aircraft. Libya's overall air defenses are based on older Soviet technology but Gortney called them capable and a potential threat to allied aircraft. Also targeted: early warning radars and unspecified communications facilities, Gortney said. The U.S. military has extensive recent experience in such combat missions; U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft repeatedly attacked Iraq's air defenses during the 1990s while enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq's Kurdish north. Cruise missiles are the weapon of first choice in such campaigns; they do not put pilots at risk, and they use navigational technologies that provide good precision. The first Tomahawk cruise missiles struck at 3 p.m. EDT, Gortney said, after a one-hour flight from the U.S. and British vessels on station in the Mediterranean. They were fired from five U.S. ships — the guided-missile destroyers USS Stout and USS Barry, and three submarines, USS Providence, USS Scranton and USS Florida. The U.S. has at least 11 naval vessels in the Mediterranean, including three submarines, two destroyers, two amphibious warfare ships and the USS Mount Whitney, a command-and-control vessel that is the flagship of the Navy's 6th Fleet. Also in the area are Navy P-3 and EP-3 surveillance aircraft, officials said. Gortney initially had said that it could take as long as 12 hours to assess the effectiveness of Saturday's strikes. Then a high-altitude Global Hawk unmanned surveillance plane would overfly the target areas to get a more precise view, the admiral said. He would not say how long the attacks on Libyan air defenses would last, but he stressed that Saturday's assault with cruise missiles was the first phase of a multi-stage mission. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was scheduled to fly to Russia on Saturday afternoon to begin a week-long overseas trip, postponed his departure for 24 hours. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates decided he should remain in Washington to monitor developments in Libya at the outset of U.S. strikes. Gates had been skeptical of getting involved in Libya's civil war, telling Congress earlier this month that taking out Libya's air defenses was tantamount to war. Others have worried that the mission could put the U.S. on a slippery slope to deeper involvement in yet another Muslim country — on top of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gadhafi, the U.S. and Britain kicked off their attacks. At a news conference in Paris, Clinton said Gadhafi had left the world no choice but to intervene urgently and forcefully to protect further loss of civilian life. "We have every reason to fear that, left unchecked, Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities," she told reporters. Clinton said there was no evidence that Gadhafi's forces were respecting an alleged cease-fire they proclaimed and the time for action was now. "Our assessment is that the aggressive action by Gadhafi's forces continues in many parts of the country," she said. "We have seen no real effort on the part of the Gadhafi forces to abide by a cease-fire." In addition to the three submarines and two destroyers, the U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean include two amphibious warships, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, and a command-and-control ship, the USS Mount Whitney. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_libya I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet.

[Sir john]

USA :finger:

[Clarke]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=263146 BTW i read they're doing it phar oil, those western zionists :cantstop:

[Laaloo]

This is where my tax dollars are going :hitler:

[The Outsider]

This is where my tax dollars are going :hitler:

This and paying diyat for Raymond Davis. :mad:

[ganeshran]

Gaddafi is evil no doubt, but USA and other countries attacking it seems highly suspicious. They seem to grow balls the minute the country in question has some oil in it. The countries without oil are free to torture their citizens.

[Stuge]

three letter word is the reason:I.e OIL These allied force have no love for the citizens of Libya .they just want oil and kill people .

[yoda]

Gaddafi is evil no doubt, but USA and other countries attacking it seems highly suspicious. They seem to grow balls the minute the country in question has some oil in it. The countries without oil are free to torture their citizens.

three letter word is the reason:I.e OIL These allied force have no love for the citizens of Libya .they just want oil and kill people .

So you guys think US got all the OIL from Iraq? :giggle: Oil prices have gone up significantly since the Iraq war and the US probably spent more billions than the amount of oil it will consume in the near future. The guy is bombing his own people. Seems like good enuf reason for an intervention.

[ganeshran]

^^ US interests and Oil was the reason for the Iraq invasion. Nascent democratic regimes are usually weaker and without strong direction. Especially those manufactured by outside intervention are devoid of strong leadershipr and hence open to manipulation. By installing such a regime in Iraq, USA has opened a nice little market for itself in Iraq where huge oil and reconstruction contracts go to favored companies. The companies in turn funnel millions of dollars to the election war chests of incumbents. Its basically legalized bribery. USA might have spent billions of dollars in Iraq but down the line in 4-5 years it would have recovered all of them money and made a neat profit on the whole venture. Armed intervention was absolutely necessary but it should have been done by UN peace keeping forces and not the NATO.

[Clarke]

^^ US interests and Oil was the reason for the Iraq invasion.

One word response would be: Bollocks. The oil & gas contracts have been won by French/Chinese/Turks or whoever bids successfully. FYI USA gets majority of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and some other countries, Iraq plays a really minor role.

Nascent democratic regimes are usually weaker and without strong direction. Especially those manufactured by outside intervention are devoid of strong leadershipr and hence open to manipulation. By installing such a regime in Iraq, USA has opened a nice little market for itself in Iraq where huge oil and reconstruction contracts go to favored companies. The companies in turn funnel millions of dollars to the election war chests of incumbents. Its basically legalized bribery.

At the cost of a trillion+ dollars ?

USA might have spent billions of dollars in Iraq but down the line in 4-5 years it would have recovered all of them money and made a neat profit on the whole venture.

That's total manure. The overall cost of the war including all the benefits and health care costs is more than a trillion. FYI Iraq is an OPEC member, it hasn't gifted a barrel of oil to USA as the price of liberating it from a dictator. There will have to be a cold century in hell before the profits come in. This 'Amrika did it phar oil' logic belongs to the green ghettos and should stay there.

[ganeshran]

One word response would be: Bollocks. The oil & gas contracts have been won by French/Chinese/Turks or whoever bids successfully. FYI USA gets majority of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and some other countries, Iraq plays a really minor role. At the cost of a trillion+ dollars ? That's total manure. The overall cost of the war including all the benefits and health care costs is more than a trillion. FYI Iraq is an OPEC member, it hasn't gifted a barrel of oil to USA as the price of liberating it from a dictator. There will have to be a cold century in hell before the profits come in. This 'Amrika did it phar oil' logic belongs to the green ghettos and should stay there.

So you are saying Amreeka invaded Iraq purely out of the perceived threat and the greater public good to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq? The american invasion in Afghanistan was because of 9/11, but in Iraq it was for strategic and economic interests. No matter whom the contracts go to (and lot of them do go to American companies) , US having a military presence in the area had a say in the decision making.

[Clarke]

So you are saying Amreeka invaded Iraq purely out of the perceived threat and the greater public good to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq?

Perceived threat, quite a bit. You have to think from a far right wing perspective, having defeated the only superpower in the cold war suddenly being jolted by the worst attack since Pearl Harbor. Common sense does not prevail all the while. Liberating the oppressed, that's only an excuse.

The american invasion in Afghanistan was because of 9/11, but in Iraq it was for strategic and economic interests. No matter whom the contracts go to (and lot of them do go to American companies) , US having a military presence in the area had a say in the decision making.

Strategic advantages, yes. Which is why a certain # of troops stay there with no end date. They're still there in Germany 65 years after the end of WW II, maybe they should close those bases first. Asia is another story with a growing China next door. Economic, not at all. Awarding contracts worth a few billion to make an actual profit in terms of millions every year for private corporations by means of spending billions of taxpayer dollars is not a profitable scenario. If you're suggesting corruption on part of the administration, that's different from the venture making a profit for the American taxpayer.

[ganeshran]

Economic, not at all. Awarding contracts worth a few billion to make an actual profit in terms of millions every year for private corporations by means of spending billions of taxpayer dollars is not a profitable scenario. If you're suggesting corruption on part of the administration, that's different from the venture making a profit for the American taxpayer.

The US spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined (With china increasing its spending the rest of world combined has reached 60%). It is also one of the world's largest supplier of arms to developing nations. Not all of their military research is done in house, a lot of third party contracts are awarded by the US to private companies which perform essential duties in wartime. All of these contracts go to favored companies. Once the war is complete, the US has virtually an free hand in deciding virtually every important policy in the nascent nation. Including the efforts to reconstruct a battered nation and renegotiating the oil contracts. With this comes the very valuable strategic advantage of combat ready troops in the strategic middle east. Plus war brings with it opening of supply chains and the US has ready resources to transport logistics in case of any other conflict in the region. The 1973 oil embargo by OPEC made US rethink its middle east policy very carefully. Their continued strategic presence in the middle east gives them the upper hand in influencing decision making favourable to the US and deterimental to its competitors. Over the long run, these factors do make the overall climate very favourable for the United States. Whether it translates into a profit for the tax payer or goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians depends on how sincere the government is.

[Clarke]

^^ I am not sure which administration was corrupt since that cannot be proven with facts & figures. You seem to suggest each of them was one and the same when it came to foreign policy ? As per the influence in the Middle East, why would they not go all the way in 1991, or suggest that the KSA Royal Family sponsored 9/11 ? The oil embargo and the Iraq war are two events separated by almost three decades. I already listed two 'opportunities' to extend the Western influence, am sure there were many more.

[yoda]

US Invaded Iraq spending 1 trillion and I just paid $4.12 for a gallon of gasoline this morning. Nice returns there for the investment. :hehe:

[The Outsider]

US Invaded Iraq spending 1 trillion and I just paid $4.12 for a gallon of gasoline this morning. Nice returns there for the investment. :hehe:

You did the investing alright, but the returns have gone elsewhere. Don't bother waiting for them. But yeah, if you bought shares in a company like Halliburton in 2001, you'd have 500% return by now. :winky:

[Laaloo]

Obama's getting a lot of stick here from the common people. He doesn't help the cause especially when he himself is vacationing in South America ( that must be his 15th or 16th vacation since his term began). Can't blame the people really. We were already at war with 2 countries and now this one and that too against these nutjobs. Weren't there idiots who were shouting Death to America in Libya after 9/11?

[varun]

You did the investing alright' date=' but the returns have gone elsewhere. Don't bother waiting for them. But yeah, if you bought shares in a company like Halliburton in 2001, you'd have 500% return by now. :winky:[/quote'] Spot on

[Clarke]

Obama's getting a lot of stick here from the common people. He doesn't help the cause especially when he himself is vacationing in South America ( that must be his 15th or 16th vacation since his term began). Can't blame the people really. We were already at war with 2 countries and now this one and that too against these nutjobs. Weren't there idiots who were shouting Death to America in Libya after 9/11?

He wasn't vacationing AFAIK. His speech on Sunday was jolly good. There's no troops in Libya, just a few bombs & missiles. If it works, great. If it doesn't, business as usual (read Amrika does war phar oil).

[yoda]

There is no question that companies like HB and other construction/oil related ones did and do benefit from the post war construction in these countries. But the question here is, do you seriously believe that such benefits are even part of the equation when the US decides to attack an OIL rich country? In short, does the US govt spend trillions attacking a country so that companies like HB can rake in billions of profits? Ofc the answer is no unless there is conclusive evidence supporting the claim.