• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AFRICOM: AF, Navy still flying Libya missions

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
AFRICOM: AF, Navy still flying Libya missions

AFRICOM: AF, Navy still flying Libya missions - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.

An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya



What is our mission here? what is our goal? where is our "exit strategy"? Is this a war for Oil?


Where are the folks who were so vocal in regards to Iraq on this mission?
 
What is our mission here? what is our goal? where is our "exit strategy"? Is this a war for Oil?


Where are the folks who were so vocal in regards to Iraq on this mission?

You obviously posted this because Obama is black and you're racist. Why don't you focus on real problems wight here in America!!! Like HUGE DEFICIT TO GIVE RICH OIL COMPANIES TAX BREAKS EH! What about all the poor people being forced to worry if they'll get food, or money if the REPUBLICANS DON'T stop acting like children and agree to taxing people who can afford to pay so that little children and old people aren't left in the street and dying!

Instead you're posting worthless rightwingut blog hit pieces worrying about things that don't matter! You are obviously a racist!!!
 
Upon further review...

Did you guys ever think to do a closer examination of the two AF and Navy aircraft mentioned in the article?

This from the article:

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”

A White House report on Libya sent to Congress on June 15 says that “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets.” The report also says the U.S. provides an “alert strike package.”

Dalrymple named the Air Force’s F-16CJ and Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as the primary platforms that have been suppressing enemy air defenses.

Now, let's look at the offensive profile of these aircraft starting with the Navy's EA-18G Growler.

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses: The EA-18G will counter enemy air defenses using both reactive and pre-emptive jamming techniques.

Stand-off and Escort Jamming: The EA-18G will be highly effective in the traditional stand-off jamming mission, but with the speed and agility of a Super Hornet, it will also be effective in the escort role.

Non-Traditional Electronic Attack: Dramatically enhanced situational awareness and uninterrupted communications will enable the EA-18G to achieve a higher degree of integration with ground operations than has been previously achievable.

Self-protect and Time-Critical Strike Support: With its Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, digital data links and air-to-air missiles, the EA-18G will have self-protection capability and will also be effective for target identification and prosecution.

Now, the Air Force's F-16CJ:

In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius (distance it can fly to enter air combat, stay, fight and return) exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. It can locate targets in all weather conditions and detect low flying aircraft in radar ground clutter. In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.

If these aircraft are being deployed to strike against air-to-ground missle defenses as the article eludes to, I don't see a problem with their usage because they would be adhering to the U.N. Resolutions agreed upon. However, if they are attacking Libyan military personnel, then we have a problem. According to the article, there is no evidence to support that U.S. military air craft have been used to attack Libyan military forces.

I call the article as :spin:.
 
Last edited:
If these aircraft are being deployed to strike against air-to-ground missle defenses as the article eludes to, I don't see a problem with their usage because they would be adhering to the U.N. Resolutions agreed upon. However, if they are attacking Libyan military personnel, then we have a problem. According to the article, there is no evidence to support that U.S. military air craft have been used to attack Libyan military forces.

I call the article as :spin:.

Do you really think that all those defenses Libya has is unmanned?

And think of it like this...If some other country did the same thing that the US is doing...would we consider that an act of war? If you answer "Yes" then what we are doing is obviously considered war. And Obama still does not have Congressional approval to be in a war in Libya. As such he is in violation of the WPA. He should be impeached.
 
Whatever sorties the U.S. is flying, and whatever bombs we're dropping, and whatever drones are launching missiles... it's one thing: Not hostile.
 
well.... duh?



wait.



no one here actually thought anyone in Europe had a military, did they?
 
well.... duh?



wait.



no one here actually thought anyone in Europe had a military, did they?

Europe has a military?
 
people (read, people in the administration) find it convenient to pretend they do - that way "It Being NATO's Mission" doesn't just mean "US Forces Will Be Doing All The Lifting, But With An Extra Layer of Bureaucratic Bull****"
 
I always find it funny when I hear something like: The United States has passed the heavy lifting onto NATO.

Meaning - we passed it off to ourselves. But I guess there is a majority of people out there who are voters who actually think that NATO is not primarily the U.S., and that some British or European military machine is now in charge. :doh
 
What is our mission here? what is our goal? where is our "exit strategy"? Is this a war for Oil?


Where are the folks who were so vocal in regards to Iraq on this mission?

Hmm, Rev, weren't you the one chastising the President at the beginning of all of this for having less balls than France?
 
Upon further review...

Did you guys ever think to do a closer examination of the two AF and Navy aircraft mentioned in the article?

This from the article:



Now, let's look at the offensive profile of these aircraft starting with the Navy's EA-18G Growler.



Now, the Air Force's F-16CJ:



If these aircraft are being deployed to strike against air-to-ground missle defenses as the article eludes to, I don't see a problem with their usage because they would be adhering to the U.N. Resolutions agreed upon. However, if they are attacking Libyan military personnel, then we have a problem. According to the article, there is no evidence to support that U.S. military air craft have been used to attack Libyan military forces.

I call the article as :spin:.

Up 'til now, I've defended Obama on this, because this is the first time I've seen actual evidence that U.S. forces are engaged in direct contact with the enemy.

Now, if our forces are, "making war", against the Libyan government, Obama needs to get his ass to Congress and get approval, or withdraw.

This indicates that we aren't involved in a, "non-kinetic", operation. Attacking the enemy is very much a Kinetic excercise.
 
Hmm, Rev, weren't you the one chastising the President at the beginning of all of this for having less balls than France?

I was. Which is why I say that either we go big, or go home. Obama isn't going big, here.
 
Up 'til now, I've defended Obama on this, because this is the first time I've seen actual evidence that U.S. forces are engaged in direct contact with the enemy.

Now, if our forces are, "making war", against the Libyan government, Obama needs to get his ass to Congress and get approval, or withdraw.

This indicates that we aren't involved in a, "non-kinetic", operation. Attacking the enemy is very much a Kinetic excercise.
Again from my post which you quoted:

Objective Voice said:
If these aircraft are being deployed to strike against air-to-ground missle defenses as the article eludes to, I don't see a problem with their usage because they would be adhering to the U.N. Resolutions agreed upon. However, if they are attacking Libyan military personnel, then we have a problem. According to the article, there is no evidence to support that U.S. military air craft have been used to attack Libyan military forces.

Now, show in the article that ground forces, i.e., Libyan servicemen, i.e., Libyan military forces, are being attacked by these aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Again from my post which you quoted:



Now, show in the article that ground forces, i.e., Libyan servicemen, i.e., Libyan military forces, are being attacked by these aircraft.

You can't seriously believe that those aircraft aren't firing on Libyan troops. Right?
 
Whatever sorties the U.S. is flying, and whatever bombs we're dropping, and whatever drones are launching missiles... it's one thing: Not hostile.

LOL! Those are love bombs. And if someone accidentally gets hurt we are sorry. All we want is to help those poor people in Libya, bless their hearts. We care so much about them. Sometime love hurts. Sometimes you have to kill people in order to help them. We are only doing what NATO tells us to do.
 
You can't seriously believe that those aircraft aren't firing on Libyan troops. Right?

What I believe isn't the issue. What's actually happening is! So, unless you can point to an article that states clearly and definitively that U.S. warplanes including Predetor Drones are firing on Libyan troops, armed or unarmed, you have nothing to go by as far as the argument of direct hostilities are concerned.

If these NATO-led U.S. military aircraft are destroying stationary missle platforms as opposed to mobile missle platforms, I have no problem with that. If mobile, I would probably be against it since mobile missle platforms are manned by military personnel. As such, if mobile units are hit it stands to reason that military personnel will also be injuried or killed. Now, here's where I have to argue with myself: "Do I stand by my humanitarian values and defend even the Libyan military against undue harm, or do I defend the larger argument - the pursuit of democracy and the protection of those who are fighting for it?

What to do, what to do?
 
Last edited:
Hmm, Rev, weren't you the one chastising the President at the beginning of all of this for having less balls than France?



Don't remember, however i would likely have made fun of over "chastizing" him in that case. Here I'm actually "chastizing" the now all but silent anti-war hoard.
 
Don't remember, however i would likely have made fun of over "chastizing" him in that case. Here I'm actually "chastizing" the now all but silent anti-war hoard.

Confirmation bias. Numerous anti-war people have expressed anger at these actions.
 
What I believe isn't the issue. What's actually happening is! So, unless you can point to an article that states clearly and definitively that U.S. warplanes including Predetor Drones are firing on Libyan troops, armed or unarmed, you have nothing to go by as far as the argument of direct hostilities are concerned.

If these NATO-led U.S. military aircraft are destroying stationary missle platforms as opposed to mobile missle platforms, I have no problem with that. If mobile, I would probably be against it since mobile missle platforms are manned by military personnel. As such, if mobile units are hit it stands to reason that military personnel will also be injuried or killed. Now, here's where I have to argue with myself: "Do I stand by my humanitarian values and defend even the Libyan military against undue harm, or do I defend the larger argument - the pursuit of democracy and the protection of those who are fighting for it?

What to do, what to do?

This is another one of those moments where common sense has to come into play.

The OP claims that American combat aircraft are suppressing Libyan anti-aircraft fire. Those AAA batteries are manned by human beings. Unless you can point out where Qaddafi has a completely robotocized AAA system, it's obvious that we're not only firing on Libyan troops, but we're also putting American service members in harm's way, which Obama said wasn't happening. Believe it, or not, those attacking anti-aircraft positions add an element of danger to a sortie.

Plausible deniability just isn't going to work this time.
 
Confirmation bias. Numerous anti-war people have expressed anger at these actions.




:lamo

Really? Where are thr Obam=hitler posters. The massive war protests? Please. Most have remained silent.
 
So how much is this non-war costing the US tax payers? I'm personally tried of the US being the world's police force, and tax payers footing the bill. I don't care who the POTUS is.

:hm
 
If we're actually at war for oil, why can't our D.C. leadership just have the balls to admit it already? Especially in Libya, the 1st nation of this sort to practically BEG US to help liberate them, our price should be their oil.

I'd be fine with this. I knew that oil was at least PART of GWB's reasoning for liberating Iraq, whether he admitted it or not. I was fine with that then too.
 
This is another one of those moments where common sense has to come into play.

The OP claims that American combat aircraft are suppressing Libyan anti-aircraft fire. Those AAA batteries are manned by human beings. Unless you can point out where Qaddafi has a completely robotocized AAA system, it's obvious that we're not only firing on Libyan troops, but we're also putting American service members in harm's way, which Obama said wasn't happening. Believe it, or not, those attacking anti-aircraft positions add an element of danger to a sortie.

Plausible deniability just isn't going to work this time.

If those Libyan anti-aircraft guns are either firing on civilians or upon NATO-led aircraft that are protecting the no-fly zone per paragraphs 4, and 6-9 of U.N. Resolution 1973, respectively, I have no problem with NATO-led aircraft firing back.
 
What is our mission here? what is our goal? where is our "exit strategy"? Is this a war for Oil?


Where are the folks who were so vocal in regards to Iraq on this mission?

It's the sustaining of forever war. Gotta have a forever war to have a fascist, authoritative government like in 1984.

Remember when that book was a warning and not a playbook? Those were the days.
 
If those Libyan anti-aircraft guns are either firing on civilians or upon NATO-led aircraft that are protecting the no-fly zone per paragraphs 4, and 6-9 of U.N. Resolution 1973, respectively, I have no problem with NATO-led aircraft firing back.

Nice non-answer to my question.

The point is, however, if Obama is ordering American air assets to go head-to-head with Libyan AAA units, then he had effectively lied when he claims that no American service members are directly engaged with the Libyans.
 
Back
Top Bottom