Libya: UK Apache(& French Gazelle) helicopters used in Nato attacks

[Turborama]

Source: BBC

British Apache attack helicopters have been used over Libya for the first time, Nato has confirmed.

They attacked and destroyed two military installations, a radar site and an armed checkpoint near Brega, the Captain of HMS Ocean told the BBC.

French Gazelle helicopters also took part in simultaneous attacks on different targets in Libya for the first time.

=snip=

The BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said: "The Captain of the HMS Ocean reported that those targets had been successfully destroyed and both Apaches returned to their base on HMS Ocean."

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13651736

---

In answer to the question about the relation between Apache AH Mk1s and American Blackhawks...

Apache AH Mk1

Crew: 2
Main weapon: 16 Hellfire anti-tank missiles
Length: 17.76m (58ft 3in)
Rotor span: 14.63m (48ft)
Cruising speed: 161mph (259km/h)
Range: 334 miles (537km)
Max mission duration: 2h 45min
Source: AgustaWestland
(From the BBC article in the OP)

The AgustaWestland Apache is a licence-built version of the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter for the British Army. The first eight helicopters were built by Boeing; the remaining 59 were assembled by Westland Helicopters (now part of AgustaWestland) at Yeovil, England from Boeing-supplied kits. Changes from the AH-64D include Rolls-Royce engines, a new electronic defensive aids suite and a folding blade mechanism allowing the British version to operate from ships. The helicopter was named "WAH-64" by Westland Helicopters. It is designated Apache AH Mk 1 (or shortened to Apache AH1) by the Ministry of Defence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_Apache

[Poll_Blind]

1. LOL- whomever fell for this sucker "no fly" bullshit....sorry for you...

I have a feeling deep down you knew it was bullshit. And just didn't care.

PB

[TheWraith]

3. What the hell are you talking about?

You do know that "no fly zone" refers to the LIBYANS, not NATO, right?

[Poll_Blind]

4. Of course! And so we go from no-fly zone to intelligence agencies on the...

...ground, to apache gunships...then...let's see...military advisors would be next, then a small embassy presence, then soldiers to help perform a aid missions, then more soldiers to go after the inevitable warlords...

And so on... Don't take much to see the future.

The arms manufacturers will be eatin' high on the hog. How you eatin' tonight?

:shrug:

PB

[Taft_Bathtub]

5. You forgot about the false-flag operation

You know, where the mighty Libyan Navy "fires" on an American destroyer and the CIA swears it happened.

Also, the US is at war with four countries right now. I just want people to realize that we are the bad guy.

[joshcryer]

7. How else do you implement R2P?

Confusing to say the least.

[joshcryer]

6. R2P, I know it's not very well liked with "sovereignty over individual" types.

Yes it was originally an NFZ but it became apparent by Gaddafi's rhetoric and actions (cutting off Misrata of all power and water, completely suppressing Zawiya, sending a convoy to Benghazi) that R2P was actionable.

[Poll_Blind]

9. I'm not saying the rest of the world can't get involved. What I'm saying is:

PB

[joshcryer]

10. I'm pleased with how the US went into a logistics role in less than two weeks.

Meaning they did it in days not weeks.

[Poll_Blind]

12. Maybe the next war you'll think "Man, we just can't afford this." Or the next.

Or the next. Or the next. It's not like we can stop bad things from happening in the world- in fact, some of our best friends are dictators or oppressive royalty. All we're doing in Libya is just setting up the next dictator or friendly-yet-repressive regime soze we can snake all that oil from them.

That's it. It looks good on the surface, and if you were paying close attention about a month ago Obama offered up a 3-ish billion dollar package to promote aid with Tunisia, Libya, and a few other places...but it all comes down to snatching up the natural resources of the Libyans and then leaving them high and dry. Just like we do with most of Africa, which is a butchery machine of epic proportions.

I'm just sayin' I don't see the value of throwing in more chips in a game that's going to harm the fuck out of the Libyans in the long term and probably get more of our buildings knocked down in new and creative ways by those who don't like what the will eventually see the US doing to their country.

PB

[tabatha]

13. I agree with you about the costs.

But by getting out as fast as they did, the US costs are being kept low - a drop in the bucket compared to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, I got the impression (this is not fact, but from a few statements I have read) that the Libyans are happy to pay back because they begged for the intervention.

I absolutely believe that it has nothing to do with resources.
The US got very little from Libya anyway.

I believe it is about this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1189527&mesg_id=1225599

[joshcryer]

15. I think the cost issue is the most inhuman horrible "issue" to invoke when people *ask* for help.

No one here would denounce the UN for helping the Ivory Coast, and in fact, the Ivory Coast went largely ignored here on DU. :cry: I'm ashamed how little I understood about these conflicts, ashamed. Look at how underreported Syria goes. It's shameful.

[tabatha]

19. You are right.

I was just pointing out that in comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan (which should never have happened) the costs are a drop in a bucket.

[joshcryer]

14. Selective Outrage about War

http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/selective-outrage-about-war.html

[tabatha]

21. Thank you - good chart.

[Turborama]

32. +1 and here's the actual graphic...

[joshcryer]

40. Best thing about this graphic is that the money comes from Pentagon descretionary.

It's not additional funding. So, basically, that war is being funded by the Pentagon having to scale back other bullshit apparatuses of our war machine. Basically 5 F-35's, for the entire duration of the war assuming it goes on for 6 months.

[Pharaoh]

2. Are British Blackhawks

A subsidiary of US Blackhawks?

:shrug: Just asking............

[joshcryer]

8. They brought them from us, trained their own pilots to fly them, and their own pilots are doing so.

They're UK's helicopters in the same way Gaddafi's tanks are his and not Russia's.

[tabatha]

11. It is too bad that the Bush's illegal wars

have soured most people on all wars.

I understand the disgust with wars - I was disgusted with Bush's wars.

But just as I thought bringing freedom to South Africa was important, it should be brought to Libya as well.
While it was possible to bring South Africa to its knees financially with the harshest sanctions, it was not possible with Libya.

There is a report somewhere in today's postings about freedom ratings - Libya was in the top "non-free" countries at 7.
I was happy to see that South Africa is now at 2. Before 1994 it would have been at 6 or 7.

From what I have seen of Heinz reports, NATO is being very careful to only take action where civilians are threatened.
I think they are keeping detailed reports.

Also, there are people in Libya keeping detailed reports on the missing. Will be back with the video link.

Thousands missing in Libya
http://youtu.be/zf4JGevF8wE
In Misrata, pro-Gaddafi soldiers have fought with opposition forces for over two months. Estimates suggest they also abducted more than twelve hundred people during their occupation. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reports.

[joshcryer]

16. I am 100% anti-war. Calling someone pro-war is like calling someone pro-abortion.

I believe if people rise up against tyrants we should help them. And I am saddened that there exist no truly progressive force on the planet to actually assist when tyrants decide to put their hammer down (see: the Spanish Civil War and the role the anarchists played).

edit: defending yourself when people are attacking you doesn't make you pro-war, it means you're sane. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. This is, I believe, Juan Coles' point of view, and he's as anti-war as they come.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. You are pro-intervention, you are pro-war

It was a piddly little faltering bit of demonstrations from honorable, democratically minded revolutionaries and asshole vindictive Islamists bent on revenge for their failed theocratic violence 15 years ago, and it hadn't the oomph to topple the government. Mercifully, there were imperialist greedheads on the sidelines just waiting to help, the love of money held sway, and acolytes of our chimera of a President stood ready to destroy all in their way.

Pro war. Willing to force foreign power into a local irritation to go on a mass killing spree and slow starvation, those who were suckered by the childlike appeal to faux-sympathy plunged headlong into a bloodlust that's smothered with a self-aggrandizing denial of the ugliness of violent modern war. You and your ilk are pro-war. It's not just saving innocents. This was a few isolated incidents of dissent, but the interventionists have bullied sensible people into accepting massive murderous retaliation. This is war. Real war. You and your doe-eyed friends have proposed and lauded WAR. Don't excuse yourselves from this. Accept and admit your advocacy of WAR.

Killing. Children and dependents suffer, and suffer more because our ultra-cheap and glad-handing President sees fit to strangle the country slowly so it will be cheap.

Pro-war. You guys wanted this. You guys need to admit it. The very idea of fighting an illegal war and lying to our people to justify it enough to keep it out of the headlines is deeply, deeply ugly.

This is all the fault of the interventionists. Every death, every dream deferred, every brokenhearted loved one is the fault of those who want this colonial interventionism.

The very idea that the pro-WAR group DEMANDS to be held as virtuous is sheer egomania, and in many cases is the result of blinkered, angry adulation of our President.

Pro-war. Intervening in a Civil strife that didn't even have enough groundswell to mount a plausible insurrection, corporatists have suckered people by their naivete to do their dirty work, and fools flock to the abuse. It's pathetic.

[pinboy3niner]

37. You're way off base in calling me 'naive' a 'fool,' and 'pathetic'

I've been to war, and got a Purple heart for spilling my blood there.

I am intimately familiar with the carnage of war. I've seen it, up close and personal. And I lost more than 60 guys I knew to war.

Yet, because I happen to be pro-intervention you call me 'naive,' a 'fool' and 'pathetic'?

We need to remember that we are family here--and though we often disagree, our motives and our reasons are not necessarily evil, or foolish or naive.

We ought to be able to disagree without hyperbolically casting labels like 'fool,' and 'naive,' and 'pathetic.'

Normally, I don't even jump on these threads because of all the crap and pro-Gaddafi propaganda.


But when you tell a combat Purple Heart vet that he's naive abut war--well, that's just pretty fucked up, if you know what I mean.

[joshcryer]

39. A "few isolated incidents of dissent." = 21 cities?

I'm going to just ignore the rest of your post because it's bordering on a baseless attack.

[Iterate]

41. Of the 25 largest Libyan cities, 21 were reported to be in open revolt.

Together, those 21 cities and towns represent approximately 78% of the population. The smallest of them is al-Jawf, with a population of about 18,000.

If the count is extended to all cities above 10,000 in population, the ratio would be 43 reporting revolt, and 7 unknown. Including any towns smaller than that is likely to simply be an artifact of chance and limited reporting. Recently, it appears that some of those who did not report any protests will remain neutral.

Another way to look at it is by the 22 districts of Libya. In that case, the largest/capital cities in each district reported at least mass protests in 16, and there were 6 with no reports. Those 16, taken in total, represent about 89% of the population, with the others being either very large and sparsely populated or the districts where large military bases are located (e.g. Sabha).

Or you could look at this:
The first free public opinion poll ever conducted in Libya reveals clues to Eastern Libyan sentiments
* 98 percent of the respondents do not support the division of Libya as a part of the political solution for the current conflict with the Gaddafi regime. Around 95 percent also don’t see any role for Gaddafi or his sons in a transitional period, and think it is impossible to implement any political reform in Libya if Gaddafi or one of his sons stays in power
http://english.libya.tv/2011/04/25/eastern-libyans-believe-in-national-unity-distrust-au-and-turkish-mediation-survey-reveals/

Sorry I can't be more comprehensive, but as you know, the Colonel does do polls or elections.

Most of the larger cities in that list stayed free long enough to kick out the security forces and people's committee members long enough to set up their own city councils.

One telling example is the smallest in the list is Al-Jawf/Kufra. It's very remote, in the far SE, and early on Gaddafi sent them several hundred thousand dollars worth of cash and an ample weapons supply if they would remain loyal. They took both the guns and the cash, then kicked out his emissary and refused to support him. Several weeks later Gaddafi sent 3000 troops (the town is about 17,000), who arrested and kidnapped, demanded loyalty, then started shelling the town indiscriminately, focusing on the hospital and water supply. Eventually the citizens fought off Gaddafi's army which then fled to Brega, repeating that pattern at every town along the way. Nato had nothing to do with any of it.

In fact the very notion of a "rebel army" is a misnomer as most of the fighters live within a few miles of the frontlines. That may change this week.

A note on "protests": Besides Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's "four red lines", 10% to 20% of Libyans work in the People's Committees, primarily in surveillance and security. Dissent is illegal under Law 75 of 1973. It alone is punishable by life in prison.

There is also the Law of Collective Punishment, passed in 1997, which allows the state to sanction entire families, towns, or districts for the wrongdoing of individuals.
Read more: http://www.meforum.org/878/libya-and-the-us-qadhafi-unr...

"Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are ‘against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system’.”"

"Law 19, “On Associations,” requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization. "
Read More: http://pubrecord.org/world/8938/libya-price-being-tone-... /

If that won't do 'ya, articles 166, 178, 206, and 207 should pound home the message. You don't protest when there is a Peoples' Committee Member in still in town unless you're pretty sure you have them outnumbered by a wide margin. Violations of most of those carry the death penalty.

In other words, every Libyan who walked out the front door to march knew full well there was no turning back. 30,000-40,000 of those protestors are in Tripoli prisons today. 800,000 have fled the country to refugee camps, about 15% of the population.

It may be too much for you to realize that about 90% want dear brother colonel guide leader and the corrupt family gang out of there, but I'll pile on another: it doesn't mean shit what some American "wants" or doesn't want. It's not about you. It's their country, their decision, their risk.

To the degree that Nato has done anything useful, it's been to keep this from being far worse, and from turning into a 20-year guerrilla war. What? do you think they would just go home and wait for the police to show up? Or maybe wait for idiot son #2 to retire 60 years from now? Do you think they have no cultural memory of the fight against Mussolini?

[joshcryer]

42. Nice post Iterate, I've seen those stats before, but that's a good compillation.

I think I'll link it in the weekly OP next week. Maybe repost it in the Libya thread?

[al bupp]

44. Brilliant repost to POE's allegations /nt

[Pharaoh]

35. problem is

we are the biggest tyrant/bully on the planet. Who is going to smack us down?

No one can.

But we will surely collapse on our own in a pile of debt corruption and lies.

Welcome to Amerika :patriot:

[psychopomp]

17. Before this shitstorm Libya had the highest living standard in Africa

and had been welcomed back into the company of nations in good standing. Now, all of a sudden Europe and her US ally see Libya as a cause du jour. Pardon me if I don't join in the cheerleading for war.

[tabatha]

18. Highest standard of living in Africa?

Sorry - that is just plain wrong.

The guy in this video worked for Gaddafi.
http://youtu.be/Mo7Bk7YY8Nc

Also, check this out - no person on earth no matter if they earned a million dollars a year, should live under those conditions.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56221.html#ixzz1OGWbG5Og

[EFerrari]

20. The US did not bring freedom to South Africa.

Our government fought divestment tooth and nail. And I think various posters have already set out those facts for you.

[tabatha]

22. I lived in South Africa during sanctions.

The US government may have fought sanctions - but sanctions were imposed on South Africa by numbers of companies.

Many foreign plants closed in South Africa.

The black population was hurt the most by the sanctions - but they were the ones who insisted on them being imposed.

The value of the Rand decreased dramatically.

I remember attending a conference in Swaziland where Van Zyl Slabbert talked about how the economy was being brought to its knees.

Sorry - I was there. I know all about it.

As for other posters, I seem to have missed them.

From wikipedia:

In 1978 and 1983 the UN condemned South Africa at the World Conference Against Racism, and a significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to disinvest from South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa.

After much debate, by the late 1980s the United States, the United Kingdom, and 23 other nations had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa.<80> A divestment movement in many countries was similarly widespread, with individual cities and provinces around the world implementing various laws and local regulations forbidding registered corporations under their jurisdiction from doing business with South African firms, factories, or banks.<81>

[EFerrari]

25. Apparently, no, you don't know all about it.

Divestment was FOUGHT here in the States by the administration, to its last dying gasp. Our government did everything possible to fight the divestment movement, including using the veto.

Maybe you could start here, with this DN! report.

Allied with Apartheid: Reagan Supported Racist South African Gvt

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/11/allied_with_apartheid_reagan_supported_racist

[tabatha]

27. Jesus, can you read ??

Read what I said again and possibly once more ---

"The US government may have fought sanctions"

Then read what Wikipedia said about sanctions imposed on South Africa.

After much debate, by the late 1980s the United States, the United Kingdom, and 23 other nations had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa.<80> A divestment movement in many countries was similarly widespread, with individual cities and provinces around the world implementing various laws and local regulations forbidding registered corporations under their jurisdiction from doing business with South African firms, factories, or banks.<81>

From another article:

All this local activity helped generate the thrust for a victory in 1986 when passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act was won over the veto of President Reagan. What made the Congressional override more surprising is that it happened while the Republican Party controlled the Senate. The Act banned new U.S. investment in South Africa, sales to the police and military, and new bank loans, except for the purpose of trade. Specific measures against trade included the prohibition of the import of agricultural goods, textiles, shellfish, steel, iron, uranium and the products of state-owned corporations. The Act has had some effect in cutting U.S. imports from South Africa, which declined by 35% between 1985 and 1987. However, in 1988 U.S. imports from South Africa increased by 14% to $1.5 billion. U.S. exports to South Africa increased by 40% between 1985 and 1988. Some of the increase in U.S. imports may be due to lax enforcement of the 1986 Act. A 1989 study by the General Accounting Office concluded that the US government had failed to enforce the Act adequately. A major weakness of the Act is that it does little to prohibit exports to South Africa, even in such areas as computers and other capital goods.

In 1987, the Budget Reconciliation Act included an amendment by Rep. Charles Rangel ending the ability of U.S. firms to claim tax credits in the U.S. for taxes paid in South Africa. This effectively imposed double taxation on U.S. corporate operations in South Africa. The sums of money involved are large. According to the Internal Revenue Service, taxes involved in 1982 were $211,593,000 on taxable income of $440,780,000. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in South Africa has estimated that the measure increases the tax bill for U.S. companies from 57.5% to 72% of profits in South Africa.

http://richardknight.homestead.com/files/uscorporations.htm

[EFerrari]

28. I not only read well, I have a good visual memory.

And having already watched you walked through this argument, I feel no need to repeat the process. Here is the thread you don't seem to remember.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1202066&mesg_id=1202066

[tabatha]

30. If you read well, you certainly do not regurgitate it very well

Please see this response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4872438&mesg_id=4872540

[EFerrari]

36. The US government was dragged kicking and screaming

to divestment. In no sense can anyone claim that Ronald Reagan brought democracy to South Africa. He did his damnedest to sabotage the whole thing.

[tabatha]

38. Where have I ever mentioned Ronald Reagan.

The support by the US government, which is what I said, was so great that they were able to override the veto of Ronald Reagan.

How many times has the veto of a President been overridden?

You state that the "The US government was dragged kicking and screaming". Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You should have said "Ronald Reagan was dragged kicking and screaming by the US government".

You got it ass-backward.

Can you actually see that?

[tabatha]

31. Yeah, I think I gave up on that one

because arguing with certain people is like banging one's head against a wall.

As you have so very well illustrated in this thread.

If something is black, you will argue to the end of time that it is white.

[tabatha]

29. Sanctions against South Africa worked.

By their nature, sanctions take a long time to have an effect, though not always as long as in the case of Myanmar, where various sanctions have been in place for a dozen years. The best known example of using sanctions to promote human rights, of course, was their application in South Africa. Sanctions, in combination with a boycott of South Africa in international sports events, caused the country to confront its international isolation, ultimately leading President F. W. de Klerk's government to release Nelson Mandela from prison and negotiate the adoption of a new constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/28/opinion/sanctions-are-a-weapon-we-need.html

[Turborama]

24. Also, Blackhawks are a "utility helicopter" made by Sikorsky, Apaches are "attack helicopters"....

...from what I have read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk

FWIW I'm not an expert on helicopters by any stretch. In fact, I hardly knew anything about them until I read the BBC article and Googled the two different types of helicopter to answer the question above and help get the facts straight.

[Badsam]

23. Nato has killed more Libyans than Qaddafi has

[tabatha]

26. Proof?

That is utter BS.

NATO has targeted military installations.

Gaddafi has targeted towns, cities, hospitals, ambulances, stores, factories --- everything BUT military because the opposition were not military.

[On the Road]

34. Good -- the Helicopters are Needed at This Stage

Should take another few weeks.

[David__77]

43. A small country can surely defeat big ones.

Stand strong, Libya.

[tabatha]

45. Stand strong 90% of the Libyan

population who rose up against Gaddafi and asked for assistance! Yes, indeed!

[David__77]

46. All of Libya, united.

I hope all Libyans will find national unity, peace, reconciliation. I hope that they will ensure their nation-state continues and prospers.

[joshcryer]

47. Without Gaddafi it shall.