5

NATO needs more planes in Libya

Coalition needs more sophisticated aircraft to combat pro-Gadhafi forces


 

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen requested “a few more” aircraft for the mission in Libya at a summit of foreign ministers in Berlin on Thursday. “Now [pro-Gadhafi forces] hide their heavy arms in populated areas where before many targets were easy to get at,” said Rasmussen. “To avoid civilian casualties we need very sophisticated equipment so we need a few more precision fighter ground attack aircraft for air-to-ground mission.” Both Britain and France have been pressing other coalition members to step up their involvement in Libyan operations. While Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark have been participating in air strikes, Spain and Italy have not taken part, although Spain said it would continue to provide aircraft without joining directly in attacks on ground targets.

BBC News


 
Filed under:

NATO needs more planes in Libya

  1. Canadian's in Harperland can borrow some money from their grandchildren, buy some planes that we do not know will work, when they are ready and send over some planes!

  2. Sure, sucker the canadians in a little deeper.

    Would someone remind me why we are there?

    Initially the suggestion was that the "West" would "level the field" by creating a no-fly zone. We are in fact taking sides in an internal civil dispute. Now that the no-fly zone has been established any further bombing is making our real motives clear. We are attempting to tip the "field" in favour of the rebels. We had no business being there in the first place and we should now bow out and let the Libyans determine their own future.

    Further, it is becoming evident that the "freedom fighters" or "rebels" we are supporting are the same Al Qeada backed "terrorists" that the USA was fighting in Iraq.

    We better be careful what we wish for!

  3. Sure, sucker the canadians in a little deeper.

    Would someone remind me why we are there?

    Initially the suggestion was that the "West" would "level the field" by creating a no-fly zone. We are in fact taking sides in an internal civil dispute. Now that the no-fly zone has been established any further bombing is making our real motives clear. We are attempting to tip the "field" in favour of the rebels. We had no business being there in the first place and we should now bow out and let the Libyans determine their own future.

    Further, it is becoming evident that the "freedom fighters" or "rebels" we are supporting are the same Al Qeada backed "terrorists" that the USA was fighting in Iraq.

    We better be careful what we wish for!

    • The UN resolution was not just to authorize the establishment of a "no-fly zone", it authorized the protection of civilians and directed the Libyan government to stop beseiging its own citizens. So long as Gadaffi's forces are attacking civilian population centres, and threatening to march on cities like Benghazi, the UN forces have an obligation to stop them. There is no evidence at all that the opposition are "Al Qaeda". Overwhelmingly they are just people who can no longer tolerate the oppression and corruption of Gadaffi's regime. We should be proud to stand beside them.

  4. The UN resolution was not just to authorize the establishment of a "no-fly zone", it authorized the protection of civilians and directed the Libyan government to stop beseiging its own citizens. So long as Gadaffi's forces are attacking civilian population centres, and threatening to march on cities like Benghazi, the UN forces have an obligation to stop them. There is no evidence at all that the opposition are "Al Qaeda". Overwhelmingly they are just people who can no longer tolerate the oppression and corruption of Gadaffi's regime. We should be proud to stand beside them.

Sign in to comment.