Jump to content

Talk:Libyan Army (1951–2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Id like to comment on several negative things posted in this article.

dubious numbers?

The Libyans with an army of some 40,000 in 1970 purchased thousands of Tanks and hundreds of Aircrafts from the soviets, they had allways planned on having spares and equipment in storage in a ratio of two to one in the field.

The t-55s mentioned are infact t-54's

the Libyan spares are not bad they are in salt mines and air conditioned dehumidified depots, the Pakistanis recently purchased libyan Mirage 3,5's and were quite surprised expecting to use them as parts and were actualy able to use the libyan equipments for regular service and send their australian manufactured mirages into spares.

Rename

[edit]

Should this be renamed to something such as Army of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, seeing as most of Libya is now under rebel control which makes it illogical to have an article named "Libyan Army" discussing the army of the Gaddafi era. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Libyan Army" at this point should be a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Libyan Armed Forces - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Libyan Army (1951-2011) – We cannot have the two sides of an ongoing civil war in the same article. Only leads to excessive edit warring.

Libyan Army → Army of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC) After the 2011 Libyan civil war, little has been left of the Libyan Army. The bulk of personnel has been killed, defected to the rebel army or fled over the border, tanks have been destroyed by NATO airplanes, and military infrastructure has been all but eradicated. For all intents and purposes, the Libyan Army as described in this article exists no more. There will be no 'reincorporation' of rebel forces into the Libyan Army; rather, a whole new army (in part made up of former rebels) is being formed, using the name 'Libyan Army'. Instead of trying to make it look as if there is some kind of continuity between Gaddafi's Libyan Army and the organization now calling itself Libyan Army, we should keep this article as a historic article about the Gaddafi-era army. The article title Libyan Army can then be used for the post-Gaddafi army. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support split: seems sensible. One is not the successor of the other. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Edit: not a split; the current army is at National Liberation Army (Libya). 86.21.250.191 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This movement lacks any kind of logic. Firstly, this topic covers not only Gaddafi era army, but also Kingdom era, ie whole history of modern Libya. Secondly, this article is not about military of Libya, but ground forces. Thirdly, saying that there is no kind of continuation is ridicolious, state didnt cease to exist, nor had bases ceased to exist as you told. New Libyan National Army is commanded by generals which got their positions during Gaddafi era, uses armor, aircrafts, support vehicles, rifles, ships etc. all purchased during Gaddafi era. And lastly - that, according to you new army which has yet to be formed, is formed and already engaged in several missions like 2012 Kufra conflict, conflict between Warshefanna and Zawiya, graduated first batch of former rebel fighters et cetera. Not even mentioning that according to this we should close all articles related to military of state which was in civil war where government-opposed movement won. Take for example Rwandan Defence Forces where changes in Libyan army today fades in comparision which what happened there after Tutsi rebels pushed army out of Rwanda to Zair. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
1) re. "this topic covers not only Gaddafi era army, but also Kingdom era": actually, apart from mentioning 1951 as the year of its establishment in the infobox and noting that it initially consisted of veterans of the Sanusi Army, this article covers nothing from the pre-Gaddafi era. Everything about the purchase of equipment and all the conflicts described are post-1969;
2) re. "this article is not about military of Libya, but ground forces": I don't see what that has to do with this discussion, as I am proposing a move from "Libyan Army" to "Army of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", not a move to "Military of Libya" or anything like that;
3) re. "saying that there is no kind of continuation is ridicolious": I disagree. The article itself states: "In September 2011, the pre-civil war Libyan army had been effectively destroyed by a combination of NATO air strikes and combat with rebel forces" and "The Libyan Army only numbered 'a few thousand' trained soldiers in November 2011". The fact that the new army might be using equipment that the old one left behind doesn't mean that there is continuity;
4) re. "state didn't cease to exist" + Rwanda comparison: actually, the state has ceased to exist. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is no more and its former territory is now controlled by the transitional government of a new state calling itself the Libyan Republic. By contrast, Rwanda roughly kept the same political structure after the genocide and the subsequent regime change, even keeping the Hutu-era constitution until 2003. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1, Irrelevant. Article isn´t completed in case of pre-1969 era, however lead and infobox clearly states that it deals with Libyan ground forces since beginning of it´s existence.
2, You could use the same argument you are using on this page on Military of Libya, Libyan Air Force and Libyan Navy.
3, Generals and high officers are all from Gaddafi-era army. System of army, ie devision into kateebas (or brigades) remains the same, bases which current army uses are all army bases (even though other army bases are under control of militias), system of chain of command remains the same, ranks remain the same and I could go on. There is continuity.
4, Actually, it hasn´t. Government ceased to exist and regime ceased to exist. Just as half of Europe did not cease to exist after overthrow of socialistic regimes, just as Libya didnt cease to exist after Gaddafi coup and proclamaiton of Libyan Arab Republic nor had Libya last year. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Well, I wouldn't object to a name covering the pre-Gaddafi era as well, such as "Libyan Army (1951–2011)". Any name that distinguishes this army from the post-Gaddafi one.
2. Yes, I could, and if this move is successful, I will. I had to start somewhere though.
3. Using bases that were previously used by the old army doesn't mean that this is the same army, nor does the adoption of systems of division and ranks. Consider this: if they had adopted the ranks and divisions of the French army instead, would that have created a continuity between the Libyan Army and the French army?
4. In fact the Eastern European socialist states did cease to exist. The new, post-1989 states were not the same states only this time with non-socialist regimes, they were in fact new states which succeeded the socialist ones. For example, you can see in List of predecessors of sovereign states in Europe that a state such as the People's Republic of Hungary ceased to exist in 1989 and was then succeeded by the Republic of Hungary. Similarly, the Libyan Republic replaced the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Highest rank?

[edit]

According to the "colonel" Wikipedia page [1], "colonel" was the highest rank in the Libyan army prior to the civil war. I am confused however by numerous instances in which officers have been referred to as "general" (i.e. Major General Abdul Fatah Younis or Major General Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr). Does anyone know if the highest rank is still (or was ever) colonel? Jetpower45 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same army

[edit]

Libya is still the same country so this article should cover the current army too. What is worse is that we actually do not have any article about the army today. Libya National Army is about the whole military. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libyan Army (1951–2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan Army (1951–2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_Army_(1951–2011)&oldid=1208171830"