They bought it from East Korea. We've found with careful research and engineering that the buyer pays more the higher we write the number. Next year's family model: the T-135.
The transition to NATO has been completed but I am now wondering if they are up to the job. I've received unconfirmed reports of Gaddafi aircraft attacking rebel forces. If this proves to be true, this is very serious..though It would seem unlikely. The number of ground attacks also seems to have dropped somewhat. If Gaddafi wins, the west can expect a serious terrorist retaliation sponsored by the regime.
Wouldn't a loss by Qaddafi loyalists also result in a terrorist attack ? I mean if you lose a whole country wouldn't you be pissed off and want to get back at those who pushed you out more than trying to get back at those who you won against? You don't seem to be thinking very well about this matter.
That seems to break down to two sub-problems: 1. Does NATO have the military capabilities? As the world's most powerful military alliance, it's hard to see how it doesn't. So, does NATO have the military capabilities currently available in theatre, given that the US has apparently placed restrictions on the use of its own forces? Again, the answer is probably yes. Which leaves the political problem -- are the more capable European airforces comfortable with an open-ended commitment of a significant proportion of their strike capabilities to a risky foreign venture, in a time of financial frugality and unpopular government cutbacks? 2. Have the rules of engagement changed since the more free-wheeling early days of the campaign when Sarkozy went with his gut and sent in his jets to protect Benghazi? I get the impression that the operation might be kind of ruled by committee right now, with a stronger emphasis on achieving consensus. So there's likely a renewed emphasis on avoiding American-style "cowboy" adventures and on reducing the risk of embarassment (such as might result from accidental civilian casulties). The operation's leaders probably don't want to get out too far in front of the UN mandate. Nobody really doubts these air forces' air-superiority and strike capabilities. It's the political leadership that generate most of the questions at this point. Definitely. It would be a gamble on Gaddafi's part, but it kind of matches his personality. In a way, it might be a good thing if he did that. His air attacks probably wouldn't be tremendously effective, but they would give NATO an excuse to mow his military a little shorter. My guess is that if it's true, it might have been Gaddafi helicopters doing it. They would be useful in urban combat, don't have to operate from fixed runways and might be easier to hide in warehouses and such places. But their use might give NATO an excuse to put a missile on any place they have reason to believe a helicopter might be secreted.
664. Libya oil as payment (4/11/2011) Though the media use beautiful words “humanity”, “protect people”, “democracy” to cover up the war the Western powers activated, there is always dirty deals behind the scenes. Three years ago, I wrote “541. Eiffel Tower bombing had been planned for Iran war (2/28/08)” and “542. Terror attack, prophecy and payment (3/4/08) “. In which I point out “What will Sarcozy get for the secret deal of Eiffel Tower bombing and Iran war? Here is one of the payments. Three years later, there is an abrupt turn. The background of this abrupt turn was: “Libya unrest: Air strike on protesters in Tripoli”, “ Libya unrest: Gaddafi forces violently quell Tripoli protest” which took place in mid-February. When US found a chance (likely created by CIA) to keep the profitable tanker contract for itself, they change the deal. The military contract was replaced by Libya oil interest. So I wrote” Libya deal”, “3/25/2011 It should have been a secret deal among US, Great Britain and France. Libya's oil interest has been sold to head countries of the NATO to exchange their support of Iran war. That's why France is so active to bomb Libya. War on Iran needs justification - a 911 alike terror attack. Britain and France would allow such false flag "terror attack" taking place in their territory. That possibly would be a dirty bomb attack. Watch for the coming “terror attack” on Eiffle Tower, though in the name of “Islamic extremists”, actually from the puppets of western intelligence.” As I always revealed the plots of the Feds in advance, they tried their best to discredit my prediction. This time they have another abrupt turn in Libya deal. In early April, the news headlines were: “Gadhafi troops recapture oil town” (A.P. 3/31); “Libya rebel leader says NATO falls short in mission”(A.P. 4/6); “Apparent NATO strike hits rebel convoy in Libya” (A.P. 4/8); “More Libyan rebels slain by NATO attacks” (4/9 Los Angeles Times) When the army of Gadhafi is heavily damaged by NATO’s air attack, how could it become such a condition? A news of 4/8 solved my puzzle. The news in Chinese newspapers asked, “Official merchant? Merchant official? Chief Director assigned Governor of Province” (Watch China, 4/8). It says that the Chief Director of the Board of China Petro-Chemistry – Su Shu Ling, is assigned by Beijing to be a member of the committee of Communist Party of Fujian as well as the Vice Governor of FujiJan Province. He still keeps his post as Chief Director of the Board of China Petro-Chemistry. Chinese web site criticize, “ After all is he an official, or a merchant?”. “How could it be possible? Like Bill Gates to be assigned Mayor of Los Angles appointed by Washington”. The unusual appointment on 4/2 indicates the Libya oil interest now is the payment to China. Chinese oil company is the interest receiver. Select Fujian is not a coincidence. From the beginning, I said it is the original place the Feds and their Chinese counterpart frame the drug case. (see “ 142. Drug case in Fujian” and “143. Drug case in Fujian (continuation)(7/10)” ) Not everybody willing to commit a crime to frame a drug case and kill a lot of innocent people. So there was such a show. They link the oil interest to the framed drug case and give Su all the high ranking title to commit the crime. Fujian Province is also my wife’s home country where she has many relatives. I worry there will be a mass killing to silence people. The change of secret deal is swift, abrupt and very effective. All mean there will be big case in April and May when the Patriot Act ended. (Possible starting date is around 4/17.) Three days ago I was told Y came to US again. I have alleged him being a government informant. (see “ 639. FISA plot continues (6/27/2010)” ) I think he will play a Troy wood Horse in coming drug case. There will be “terror attack” in US, G.B. and France to justify war on Iran. Though they changed the payment. There must be some other deal to compensate French.
Misrata's taken a hell of a pounding from Gaddafi's forces. I went into this phase with the thought that I was a NATO serviceman, It was a good organisation, they won't let them down..etc. Boy, was I misguided. As far as Gaddafi's concerned, well, he just ain't concerned. The rebels are out of food, water, supplies and medical aid. Nobody can fight on without these things for long and Bucher Gaddafi Knows this, He's a military man, not a politician first and foremost. I get constant updates and desperate pleas for help from my contacts, and what can I tell them? That NATO isn't up to it boys, you're on your own? Every time we hit some armour they think NATO is about to roll them all up, but it never happens. These constant disappointments are very bad for morale.
The best course of action would have been to negotiate some sort of peace deal, ceasefire, etc. Now it's a futile situation. And like I said before, it's very hard to backpedal once you've bombarded someone's country with missiles and jets. Thanks Obama, for proving that "Yes, you CAN" be another George W. Bush!
Misrata's probably going to fall, unless it's strongly reinforced by actual troops through the port, or a relief column breaks through to them on the ground from the east. But given the state of the rebels' armed forces, that doesn't seem likely in the near future. I don't blame the NATO air forces for that. They have been pretty effective at keeping Quaddafi from using armor to challenge the rebels in the east. Heavy military equipment is awfully visible and exposed while traversing long desert roads. Things can get better, and it probably will as the rebels get more organized and their coordination with the NATO forces improves. But urban street fighting from building to building? Stopping squad sized Quaddafi units from using mortars? Fast jets aren't the most effective weapons for those assignments. The world press is full of news that the US has begun the the use of Predator drones in Misurata. But the small print reveals that there are just two of them. That's not going to change the situation on the ground. Time will tell if the number increases significantly, or whether this is just a political publicity stunt designed to keep Obama from looking ineffective in the press as elections approach. Predators raise some questions. They don't have very long range, do they? Nor are they refuelable by air. I don't recall seeing reports of an ability to operate off ships. So where are they taking off and landing? Malta's about 230 miles away from Misurata. The Italian island of Lampedusa is about 250 miles. Sicily's nearest point is about 300 miles. The closest point in Tunisia is about 200 miles, but that route would have the Predators traversing over Tripoli.) But even lots of Predators probably wouldn't turn things around in Misurata. (They aren't heavily armed.) The next ratchet up would be for the UK, France, Italy or somebody to send a significant force of attack helicopters (the British Army has Apaches). Unfortunately that would be much more dangerous and some aircraft and pilots would likely be lost. I'm almost certain that Obama wouldn't authorize US forces in that role. He doesn't want to have anything to do with this war but needs plausible deniability in case his political opponents accuse him of weakness. And the final option would be ground troops into Misurata. The press is reporting that the EU has floated a trial balloon about that and is apparently considering sending a relief force into Misurata under EU auspices (and not NATO). It certainly would have humanitarian justification. But the EU doesn't want to approve it unless the UN gives them a green light, and I don't see China et.al. giving it. I'm not sure where the EU ground troops would actually come from. But a battalion or two of battle-hardened French foreign legionaires would certainly help stiffen the rebels in Misurata. Sarkozy's probably the one pushing the EU on this. He's never liked NATO's command of the operation. But maybe the most likely and realistic option (short of Misurata falling which is still #1) would be for the Libyans to do it themselves, with the rebels in Benghazi sending some of their best fighters into Misurata by sea as reinforcements. The West could help with humanitarian (and covert military?) supplies in that scenario.
http://cdn01.tv4.se/polopoly_fs/1.2037705!image/781802975.jpg_gen/derivatives/w450/781802975.jpg This is not Khadaffi anymore, this is an Edgar-suite.
Can someone please tell me what exactly happens when Gaddafi is "dead or gone"? Is it like the Republican mantra of CUT CUT CUT, that it magically cures the economy, except whatever it is that Gaddafi has done wrong, that Libya's problems are over if they CUT CUT CUT him? What did they get in Egypt? Did they get change? No. Is the fighting over in Afghanistan and Iraq, ten years and eight years on, respectively? No. Ooo! A thousand rebels rise up against a guy who was buddy buddy with the USA just last year, and now we have to CUT CUT CUT! It's magic! He HAS to go! Once he does, it's a fairy tale ending, right? Wrong. I don't see any long term plans, or any strong leaders. Even analysts like Michael Scheuer who studies this shite for a living said "We don't know a lot about who these people are." So, when I hear idiotic plans like, Oh, we need a regime change! or "This guy simply has to leave power!" that generic approach is very unconvincing. They might as well be chanting "WE WANT A POWER VACUUM! WE WANT CHAOS!!!" It would be simpler and more honest.
Yazata, that is an interesting question, who and where are the drones being launched/controlled by. I can't see the US handing over highly valuable classified kit to just anybody. They must have people nearby to service and run these things. Gaddafi would no doubt love to know this too, so we might not find out for a while yet.
Giambattista, I think the rebels have organised themselves into a reasonable semblance of an opposition government at the insistence of the British and French governments. It was pretty much a condition of our getting involved. A de facto power vacuum isn't all that likely and there are still members of the government we could still work with even if we don't especially like them. My arguement is that the longer Gaddafi is allowed to play warlord, the more people on both sides will die. The regime would collapse in days if he was killed, allowing many more people to live. Gaddafi is like a ferret in a henhouse, but he simply can't kill people quickly enough for a decisive victory. NATO should have killed him ages ago, and many more people would be alive today. I think NATO has been hoping for an assination, it's just a matter of time in my opinion.
Libyan War Gets Weird Defending the indefensible There we go. That's better. Love them freedom fighters.
We heard the same lines before. Iraq comes to mind. That's all well and good, and in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this. But this is the real world. A world of duplicitous snakes, treasonous actors, and triple-agents. I have reasonable suspicions that as you say, there is a reasonable semblance of an opposition government at the insistence of the British and French governments. Yeah, it was a few weeks ago they set up a central bank. My suspicions are that outside interests are fomenting this conflict as an opportunity to move in and set up shop. Why let Gaddafi use the oil money to build infrastructure, when the IMF and international lenders can get the Libyan people into debt, and take control of their oil and fresh water. Libya has a huge aquifer.
Something interesting has apparently happened today (Saturday April 23) in Misrata. The Libyan military seem to be withdrawing from a least part of the city, including downtown. Journalists confirm that it's happening, but it isn't yet clear how widespread it is. Qaddafi's spokesmen are saying that they will be sending in armed tribesmen to finish the job. But there's no sign of that as yet. It seems to be that some of the military forces in Misrata were previously in the hills southwest of Tripoli, sitting on the restive Berber towns there. (Zitan, Yafren and Nalut.) When the troops were moved to Misrata, these localities once again raised the rebel flag. So the speculation seems to be that Qaddafi's been forced to move troops back into the hills and may want to avoid continued street-fighting in Misrata given the smaller force that remains there. So it's back to a blockade at the edge of town. That brings up the size and composition of Qaddafi's forces. I gather that the Libyan military totaled 70-something thousand before this started. Most of that was conscripts, draftees, and they largely melted away in the early days of the uprising. I'm increasingly inclined to think that Qaddafi's people actually encouraged them to leave, fearing that a citizen-army might rise against them in a coup. So what Qaddafi had left was about 12,000 military, composed of the loyalists among the professional officers and non-coms. It also included several special regime-protection brigades commanded by his sons. There was also a foreign-legion-style unit composed of African mercenaries that was active in the early days but hasn't been heard of very much since. I guess that he still had most of his air force and navy, since those services probably had more technicians and fewer conscripts. Both of those services have been effectively suppressed by NATO. But Qaddafi has other loyalists, the civilian thugs who ran his local 'revolutionary committees' and similar people. And he's apparently issued arms to lots of them. So Qaddafis forces probably include lots of civilians in pickup trucks waving AKs, not unlike the rebels. And NATO's been seeing a lot of that. The bottom line of these observations is that Qaddafi's trained military forces might be stretched awfully thin. He's got a lot of them in Tripoli no doubt, to protect his regime. There's another large group of them in his loyal hometown of Sirte, blocking the rebels in the east. He's deployed a lot of soldiers to Misrata in hopes of suppressing it quickly, which hasn't happened. Now the Berbers in the hills are demanding more of his attention as well. We hear a lot about the rebels' problems, but Qaddafi's got problems too. He has limited resources and he's scrambling to put out fires everywhere. (Edit) I should add that there are also reports today of NATO aircraft (British, French, Canadians or somebody) hitting Qaddafi troops moving into the Zitan, Yafren Nalut hill area. So the rebels there seem to be getting some kind of air support.
Gaddafi's compound has been hit... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13184594 And in the same article, it is noted that Gaddafi's forces have encicled Misrata, but they themselves have been encircled by rebels and cut off from resupply. Also we see again why it's a bad idea to execute captured soldiers:
Was this an ESP-derived prediction? Or just common sense? Either way, this whole thing seems familiar. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380566/Libya-Liam-Fox-warns-Gaddafi-Give-kill-you.html What would one expect someone like Gaddafi to do when faced with an armed revolution? Welcome them with open arms? Or put them down? Whether you like him or not, and he seems like a creep to me personally, I have to question the purity of motives, particularly of the U.S., or more appropriately, the unilateral, Constitution-defying Executive branch under Obama. While violent suppression of political "deviants" is relatively rare in the United States, at least those resulting in death, we have more of a soft tyranny when it comes to political opposition. Rigorously enforced security perimeters and free speech zones (???) at mass rallies and geopolitical and financial world summits are routine, with inevitable arrests of peaceful demonstrators. The G20 meeting in Pittsburgh saw a veritable lock down of parts of the city, with, if I recall, National Guard (or other branch) as part of the police force, with reports of armored vehicles mounted with sound cannons. The G8 in Toronto last year had temporarily constructed prisons, plenty of arrests, suspicious violent "anarchists" whom the police seemed less than interested in controlling, and by many accounts, an approximately $1 billion dollar price tag. That's right. For one weekend worth of security, the equivalent of Toronto's entire annual budget was spent. There are other characteristics of what I call a soft tyranny (one that is not overt, and appears to be something other than what it is, in effect). The above are good examples. The United States (or most importantly, the interests that wield the most power) and their foreign policies have a two-faced nature. People who would in ordinary circumstances be regarded as violent extremists, terrorists, etc. are called "freedom fighters" or "democratic revolutionaries" when it is in the convenient interests of the powers that be at the moment. The very same group down the road, once their usefulness has expired, become the terrorists, just another enemy for the propaganda machine. As I quoted in an article above In that case, what is the difference between the two sides? Gaddafi is bad because he, like virtually any government, has an aversion to political protests against that government. Especially violent rebellion. Do you think armed militia are well-tolerated in the bastion of freedom known as the US? Even self-defense against aggressive suppression is often reason enough for someone to be sent to jail, or increasingly, perhaps branded a domestic terrorist. These reports of the peaceful, democratic revolutionaries utilizing exactly what the NATO coalition is supposedly fighting against should cause anyone thinking person to pause. What happens when these revolutionaries come to power? The reason for Obama bypassing Congress and going straight for a missile barrage, apparently going back on his word that no attacks would occur without Congressional approval, was to stop an "imminent" bloodbath. Of course, whether real or not, the absence of such a massacre is naturally touted as proof that the course of action prevented it. But, let me repeat: what happens when these rebels take control of the country? Given the reports, will we honestly be able the expect that violent reprisal and vengeance against scores of people will not come to pass? And regarding the violence against dark-skinned Africans, can we be assured that such pay-back will not involve scapegoating against innocent people merely in the wrong place, wrong time? Will the extreme elements of this rebellion be fuel for the fire leading to future action against Libya? Did Obama Forget to Have a Gaddafi Meeting 'Without Preconditions'? Instead of diplomacy, Obama is going to earn his Peace Prize the other way. War, after all, is peace.
