Libya no fly zone

[Eki]

Who or what gives the U.N. authority in any countries internal affairs
The Security Council that is run by the US.

[Bob Riebe]

The Security Council that is run by the US.Who or what gives the security council any legal authority over any other country?

[Tazio]

Welcome back Glauistien.
Thanks mr Hay-seed anything I can do for
youVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6jolY7PGtj8RAiE64rvp1kXSw3UnY8 yVT21mAtH0ne-oYzVGi
you!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Eki]

Who or what gives the security council any legal authority over any other country?
The UN Charter.

[Tazio]

Who or what gives the security council any legal authority over any other country?
Bobby your just upset because this turns your belief system upside down! :(

[Tazio]

Eki I don't know if this changes anything but Sarkosy is a Jew :eek:

[Eki]

Eki I don't know if this changes anything but Sarkosy is a Jew :eek:
If the Libyans will find that out, they might all unite against the coalition, even the rebels.

[Koz]

I wonder if the Arab League knows...

Edit: Why did you stop winning? :p

[Tazio]

I wonder if the Arab League knows...

Edit: Why did you stop winning? :p

I don't think it would bother them nearly as much as our great nation is run by an inferior race.
But the good news is that it's common knowledge that Obama is a brother of Islam. I heard that on Beck :laugh:
By the way bro, do you have a chat set up for this weekend?

[Bob Riebe]

The UN Charter.What makes the UN charter worth the paper it was written on.
What authority it behind it. The UN has no authority anywhere by any law.
The UN can say they are the great kahuna, but like anything they do, but what legal authority gives them any right.

[Tazio]

Here it is.........




The smoking gun!!!!!




Hide the children




We’ve been Horns waggled :eek:




Liberal




Dem




Fraternizing with the enemy



http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/qaddafi-and-o-2.jpg

[Koz]

What makes the UN charter worth the paper it was written on.
None except the fact that member nations signed it.


What authority it behind it. The UN has no authority anywhere by any law.
The UN can say they are the great kahuna, but like anything they do, but what legal authority gives them any right.

As above.


But the good news is that it's common knowledge that Obama is a brother of Islam. I heard that on Beck :laugh:
And his long lost cousin Osama. :)


By the way bro, do you have a chat set up for this weekend?

Yup. It's still up from last year.

[Rollo]

What makes the UN charter worth the paper it was written on.
What authority it behind it. The UN has no authority anywhere by any law.
The UN can say they are the great kahuna, but like anything they do, but what legal authority gives them any right.

What makes ANZUS worth the paper it was written on? What makes NATO worth the paper it was written on? What makes NAFTA worth the paper it was written on?
The answer to those three questions contains the answer which you are so keen to deny.

[Bob Riebe]

What makes ANZUS worth the paper it was written on? What makes NATO worth the paper it was written on? What makes NAFTA worth the paper it was written on?
The answer to those three questions contains the answer which you are so keen to deny.In all those the countries affected agreed to it.

Libya did not agree to let any UN bs screw them.

Your analogy is void.

The UN is an empty suit with not legal powers, except perhaps the barrel of a gun.

[Retro Formula 1]

What makes ANZUS worth the paper it was written on? What makes NATO worth the paper it was written on? What makes NAFTA worth the paper it was written on?
The answer to those three questions contains the answer which you are so keen to deny.

You forgot the constitution of the US of A and the God given right to bear arms :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

What makes the UN charter worth the paper it was written on.
What authority it behind it. The UN has no authority anywhere by any law.
Of course it doesn't if it is undermined and criticised at every opportunity in certain quarters.

It's interesting to note the contempt that successive US Republican administrations have for the UN, at least at the beginning of their terms (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0922/p03s02-uspo.html)). Of course they would probably argue that their initially antagonistic approach improved the UN in some way which is why their views changed by the time they left office.

Perhaps the reality is that the UN is an essential forum in times where there are few 'local' issues in the international community. Fortunately from the start the Obama administration has taken a far more positive approach (link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/13/us-usa-un-idUSTRE57B5X320090813)).

[Eki]

What makes ANZUS worth the paper it was written on? What makes NATO worth the paper it was written on? What makes NAFTA worth the paper it was written on?
The answer to those three questions contains the answer which you are so keen to deny.
You could also add the US constitution to that list.

[Retro Formula 1]

You could also add the US constitution to that list.

Wakey, wakey Eki ;)

[markabilly]

You could also add the US constitution to that list.

What makes the US Constitution worth something, is that it was agreed to and should be honored as the supreme law of the land, which Obama completely failed to do when he sent the cruise missiles flying. Instead, he honored the wishes of a few drooling foreign politicos over at the UN, in direct violation of the consitution, and in so doing, killed people outside the law of the land.

For this, he should be impeached.
Period.

[Zico]

What makes the US Constitution worth something, is that it was agreed to and should be honored as the supreme law of the land, which Obama completely failed to do when he sent the cruise missiles flying. Instead, he honored the wishes of a few drooling foreign politicos over at the UN, in direct violation of the consitution, and in so doing, killed people outside the law of the land.

For this, he should be impeached.
Period.

The first time in history an American president has become a lapdog to some foreign 'poliicos'.. now that is funny!

No, It seems to me that this is very much a US controlled attack on a country under the flag of the UN who merely agreed to impose and uphold a no-fly zone.

Im getting deja vu !

"The Pentagon expects to hand over control of allied military operations in the UN-mandated no-fly zone in the coming days"

BBC news

[Tazio]

Of course it doesn't if it is undermined and criticised at every opportunity in certain quarters.

It's interesting to note the contempt that successive US Republican administrations have for the UN, at least at the beginning of their terms (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0922/p03s02-uspo.html)). Of course they would probably argue that their initially antagonistic approach improved the UN in some way which is why their views changed by the time they left office.

Perhaps the reality is that the UN is an essential forum in times where there are few 'local' issues in the international community. Fortunately from the start the Obama administration has taken a far more positive approach (link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/13/us-usa-un-idUSTRE57B5X320090813)).Around 1971 there started to appear Bumper stickers that reads "US out of UN".I'm not sure which issue it was that started Right-Wingers off on that one (may have something to do with the Shaw of Iran). Over the time between then and now I still see some. I think it has something to do with if opinions with U.S are not consistent with world opinion it has to be useless. There are plenty of "My fellow Americans" that suffer from selective amnesia. I want to make it perfectly clear. The U.S.A. has always gotten there to address issues that need them when the chips are down. However we have this overloaded opinion of ourselves. The good news is that in an era of spontaneous cries for democracy we have a very excellent Secretary of State. Also a president that has cultivated a dialogue with the world community. Unlike the second Gulf war The UN and its member countries were lining up to join us in the implementation of what is referred to as operation Odyssey Dawn. Personally this American is glad to know we have partners when we address these issues, with the full admission that the expense will be parsed, and shared by a very enthusiastic coalition.

[ArrowsFA1]

What makes the US Constitution worth something, is that it was agreed to and should be honored as the supreme law of the land, which Obama completely failed to do when he sent the cruise missiles flying. Instead, he honored the wishes of a few drooling foreign politicos over at the UN, in direct violation of the consitution, and in so doing, killed people outside the law of the land.

For this, he should be impeached.
Period.
Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, as did Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam. There are more than two hundred instances in which presidents have sent armed forces into hostile situations to protect US lives and property without a declaration of war being made by Congress

The 1973 War Powers Act gives a President 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action.

The UN charter (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml) was ratified by the Senate in 1945, and as such the president is bound by its terms.

[BDunnell]

I'm afraid I'm finding some of the contributions to this thread from our friends on the American right to be nothing short of bonkers.

[markabilly]

Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, as did Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam. There are more than two hundred instances in which presidents have sent armed forces into hostile situations to protect US lives and property without a declaration of war being made by Congress

The 1973 War Powers Act gives a President 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action.

The UN charter (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml) was ratified by the Senate in 1945, and as such the president is bound by its terms.


You mean John F Kennedy. Truman tried to call it a "police action"

In any event the war powers resolution is very specific. It requires (1) an emergency (ie no time to talk before taking action) AND (2)that the territory and persons of the USA be attacked.

Neither are present. The fact that other presidents may have violated the constitution, does not excuse the behavior, nor more than arguing that other people got away with murder, so why not me?

The UN can only authorize taking action; it can not require any military action of attacking another country as something ordered by the UN.

Dunnel?? you still sitting on your butt?? How come you are not leading the charge, shooting and being shot at, to save them Lybians from themselves???????
Armchair warriors........ :rolleyes:


Maybe the USA needs to get some payback on england for the war of 1812. Or do we got to ask the UN before we can do that or go to the bathroom.....

[markabilly]

What's the over under line on how much longer Moammar Kadafi will last until his reign of terror is destroyed.
I give him 34 hrs as of 8:20 PDT.

What sayeth thee.

The image below is of the British expeditionary force surrendering to combined French and Colonial Forces Near Yorktown.

Lord Howe was too humiliated (I mean ill) to have the stones to hand his sword over to General Washington.
Instead he hands it off to a subordinate with instructions to present it to General Rochambeau :bigcry:


http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/american_war_of_independence_york_town_surrender_g eneral_cornwallis.jpg


:s ailor: Winning

DARN!!! you should not have posted this picture. Now those Englanders will be wanting to get some payback and send some cruise missiles up the ole Potamac.....

[Daniel]

DARN!!! you should not have posted this picture. Now those Englanders will be wanting to get some payback and send some cruise missiles up the ole Potamac.....

Why do you Canadians not know the difference between England and Great Britain?

[markabilly]

Why do you Canadians not know the difference between England and Great Britain?

cause I am color blind.

[Tazio]

I'm afraid I'm finding some of the contributions to this thread from our friends on the American right to be nothing short of bonkers.
It is much worse in the big picture. I have a hard time understanding them. It is hysterical to me that Brits have embraced what Sarkosy(whatever his motives or agenda is )has done. Brits are indoctrinated to have a general hatred of the French. A lot of countries do, but only Italy can claim to have one as legitimate as the Brits. I don't think that club bonkers have any clue how ignorant and simplistic their positions are, if you scroll back a few pages you can see documentation of how I refused to acquiesce to all posters some British, but mostly Americans that somehow diplomacy works and it works even better than some people want to admit, or think they have the time for.

[Tazio]

DARN!!! you should not have posted this picture. Now those Englanders will be wanting to get some payback and send some cruise missiles up the ole Potamac.....Actually it was in response to one that I thought (although funny) needed to be balanced out!

[ArrowsFA1]

The fact that other presidents may have violated the constitution, does not excuse the behavior...
And yet I suspect if Obama had waited and sought the approval of Congress you may well have been calling for his impeachment on the basis of hesitation :p :

[Roamy]

So they say they are not targeting Quaddafi - Now how dumb is this. In a cancer operation you do not leave the heart of the tumor. Jesus we need out of the war business.

[BDunnell]

So they say they are not targeting Quaddafi - Now how dumb is this. In a cancer operation you do not leave the heart of the tumor.

A fair and reasonable point, but I can completely see — as deep down, I reckon you may be able to as well — why those involved are attempting to avoid forcing a 'regime change' themselves. Far better for the same thing to happen as occurred in Serbia in 1999, where it was the people's doing and not directly NATO's, than what took place in Iraq.

[markabilly]

And yet I suspect if Obama had waited and sought the approval of Congress you may well have been calling for his impeachment on the basis of hesitation :p :

not me, but may be others........i would be saying that he recognizes the constitutional requirements necessary before he starts blowing the snot out of people

Some think that because I do not support gun banning and all that, that i be a right winger; however that is the one and perhaps the only area which I might qualify. I voted for McCain becuse of his position on adopting certain economic policies that the mega rich hated in terms of what they would no longer be able to do on Wall Street, and mcCain had been pushing that long before he became a presdential candidate, so the fact that the Wall Street fat cats did not like him, but liked obama was all I needed to know.

Voting for Obama makes one look liberal, when in fact, that is mostly smoke screen for the benefit of the public, while privately, he has always taken care of the fat cats, even while in congress. As someone in Watergate once said, "follow the money" .....


So like i posted earlier, where is the money.......must be something for someone, maybe the french need some oil?????????????????

[markabilly]

So they say they are not targeting Quaddafi - Now how dumb is this. In a cancer operation you do not leave the heart of the tumor. Jesus we need out of the war business.

Very dumb. Always figured one way to stop all wars would have it be that the first to die would be all the leaders involved........one reason for the lack of a nuclear war, as it would be tough for the leaders to escape

[Tazio]

So they say they are not targeting Quaddafi - Now how dumb is this. In a cancer operation you do not leave the heart of the tumor. Jesus we need out of the war business.

Thanks for that one Roamy. That is Forum gold

:rotflmao:

[Bob Riebe]

\

The UN charter (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml) was ratified by the Senate in 1945, and as such the president is bound by its terms.Bound?
Why, give legal proof.

[markabilly]

Bound?
Why, give legal proof.

I beleive he mis-spoke. Even if we are "bound", those terms do not mandate that the member countries must go to war when the UN says so.......
Technically, there are those that argue that due to certain language in the constitution, a treaty ratified under article II by the Senate is on equal footing with the constitution and federal law; however the why that may be true or NOT true, is beyond the scope of this forum.

I would add, for those who just got to know, Reid v Covert, is about as close as we have come to an answer, although that did not involve an article II treaty: "this [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty......"

[Bob Riebe]

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

----------------------------------------
We are not invading all Muslim countries why?

Libya had the highest standard of living in the area, and women had the more rights than before Qaddafi took over, yet the United Nattering Nabobs ignore other Muslim stink-holes that butcher women to go after poor old Qaddafi.

[markabilly]

----------------------------------------
We are not invading all Muslim countries why?

Libya had the highest standard of living in the area, and women had the more rights than before Qaddafi took over, yet the United Nattering Nabobs ignore other Muslim stink-holes that butcher women to go after poor old Qaddafi.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?141489-Libya-no-fly-zone&p=898858#post898858

is a start.......Logic got nothing to do with the unconstitutional actions of sending cruise missiles ....

[BDunnell]

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

----------------------------------------
We are not invading all Muslim countries why?

Libya had the highest standard of living in the area, and women had the more rights than before Qaddafi took over, yet the United Nattering Nabobs ignore other Muslim stink-holes that butcher women to go after poor old Qaddafi.

'Poor old Gaddafi'. My word.

[Daniel]

Rofl...... Poor old Gaddafi :D

[Rollo]

Why do you Canadians not know the difference between England and Great Britain?

The reason is a thing called "Metonymy", where something is said in place of something else. In this case one thing - England, stands in place of the whole - Great Britain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O5rCjTa6v4

[Tazio]

Starting to look like Khadafy is going to get a favorable ruling from the U.N.
That guy is a freakin' magician

[Tazio]

It time to put some British, French, Canadian, Italian, and all other special forces on the ground.
No American boots on the ground however!

[Tazio]

Now that I've had a chance to deliberate, I don't think there is a chance in hell that a rulling by the UN will save "The Great Dictator" from this unholy quest. Sarkosy will keep fighting that b@stard untill the UN puts a contract out for anyone to shove a cap up his @$$

[Roamy]

A fair and reasonable point, but I can completely see — as deep down, I reckon you may be able to as well — why those involved are attempting to avoid forcing a 'regime change' themselves. Far better for the same thing to happen as occurred in Serbia in 1999, where it was the people's doing and not directly NATO's, than what took place in Iraq.

Solution to the problem in Libya:



They want a new Muslim leader, I say, give them ours.



Solves 2 problems.

[markabilly]

Solution to the problem in Libya:



They want a new Muslim leader, I say, give them ours.



Solves 2 problems.


And would raise the average IQ in both places

[markabilly]

I'm afraid I'm finding some of the contributions to this thread from our friends on the American right to be nothing short of bonkers.

even the hard core leftist liberal democrats are whining about the unconstitutional actions of our beloved president :bigcry:

:roll:

He could consult with the Arab league, He could consult with the UN, but he don't even call the people in his own party serving in Congress...... :roll:

[Rollo]

Bound?
Why, give legal proof.

United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

Done. QED.

[Bob Riebe]

United Nations Participation Act, December 20, 1945
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp

AN ACT To provide for the appointment of representatives of the United States in the organs and agencies of the United Nations, and to make other provision with respect to the participation of the United States in such organization.
Be it enacted by the Senate arid House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "United Nations Participation Act of 1945".

Done. QED.This binds us to any UN rules why?
Show me the part that says UN laws legally are worth more than the ink it took to print them.

[Rollo]

This binds us to any UN rules why?
United States Federal Law applies in the United States.


Show me the part that says UN laws legally are worth more than the ink it took to print them.

Obviously you don't agree with the whole concept of the established rule of law then.

[Bob Riebe]

United States Federal Law applies in the United States.



Obviously you don't agree with the whole concept of the established rule of law then.This has nothing to do with U.S. Federal law, zilch.
There is no Federal that makes any UN hype more than a piece of paper, written by wannabes.

[Rollo]

The United Nations Participation Act was passed by the US Congress and signed off by Harry S. Truman on the 20th of December 1945. Laws which are passed by the Congress are the Law in the United States. The United Nations Participation Act is part of US Federal Law.

[Bob Riebe]

The United Nations Participation Act was passed by the US Congress and signed off by Harry S. Truman on the 20th of December 1945. Laws which are passed by the Congress are the Law in the United States. The United Nations Participation Act is part of US Federal Law.You are wrong, it is in no way connected to U.S. laws, it merely means we are supposed to send them x amount of money to belong to a feel good society.
United Nattering Nabob laws mean squat in any U.S. court.

One of these days we may get a congress with enough balls to quit. The U.S. populace would be very happy to quit flushing money down that toilet.

[markabilly]

Rollo, my hat is off to you for trying really, really really hard, and sometimes you come close, real close, but darling clementine, once again "no cigar" as ole Groucho would say.
You missed the boat.

Perhaps you should actually carefully read what you find, very very closely.

Congress has passed a number of laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional.
Second, the so-called "act" does not say what you want it to say.
I will put more detail in the other thread.

[ArrowsFA1]

Congress has passed a number of laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional.
Has the United Nations Participation Act been "struck down as unconstitutional"?

[555-04Q2]

I love it. Now the UN and allied forces have approved the bombing of Libya. Why is it that only countries with oil are targeted these days? While I don't agree with what Gadafi is doing to his people, he is no worse that the likes of Robert Mugabe, but as they have no oil, they have been unmolested for many years now. Libya, just a few weeks and suddenly half the world is involved. Stinks.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why is it that only countries with oil are targeted these days? While I don't agree with what Gadafi is doing to his people, he is no worse that the likes of Robert Mugabe, but as they have no oil, they have been unmolested for many years now. Libya, just a few weeks and suddenly half the world is involved. Stinks.
A bad smell indeed, but apparently the reason for the inaction over Mugabe is that, unlike the Arab League in Libya's case, African states have not reached an agreement/consensus to take action against him and therefore the international community will not intervene.

[Tazio]

A bad smell indeed, but apparently the reason for the inaction over Mugabe is that, unlike the Arab League in Libya's case, African states have not reached an agreement/consensus to take action against him and therefore the international community will not intervene.I not only agree, there are UN missions that don't get a lot of ink. It usually takes extraordinary events, and to your credit @555 stakes that are important to all members, which includes a contingency plan. Just for yucks and giggles I decided to Google a mediocre western state's military preparedness
and conflicts involved.
As to Mugabbe Why is this man still in power?

According to The Guardian, Annan allegedly made an extraordinary offer to Mugabe at the millennium summit of world leaders in New York.

The memo, written in September 2000, records a meeting between a US embassy official in Harare and a senior source in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the party opposed to Mugabe's Zanu-PF.

The cable reveals that Zanu-PF itself had put out "feelers" to see whether the MDC would be willing to allow Mugabe a "graceful exit" that was "in Zimbabwe's national interest".
Yes this whole deal stinks

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/414910.php

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Italian_Armed_Forces_operations.png/400px-Italian_Armed_Forces_operations.png


Since the second post-war the Italian armed force has become more and more engaged in international peace support operations, mainly under the auspices of the United Nations. The Italian armed forces are currently participating in 24 missions that take place in 18 countries over three continents[5]:

United Nations
UNTSO, from 1958 (Israel, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon) – 8 out of 142 soldiers from 23 countries
UNMOGIP, from 1951 (India and Pakistan) – 7 out of 44 soldiers from 8 countries
UNIFIL, from 1978 (Lebanon) – 2,410 out of 12,800 soldiers from 30 countries
MINURSO, from 1991 (Western Sahara) – 5 out of 915 soldiers from 14 countries
UNFICYP, from 2005 (Cyprus) – 4 out of 915 soldiers from 14 countries
UNAMID, from 2008 (Sudan) – 1 officer out of 19,000 soldiers from 53 countries
KFOR, from 1999 (Kosovo) – 1,596 out of 12,990 soldiers from 32 countries
ISAF, from 2001 (Afghanistan) – 3,207 out of 63,500 soldiers from 40 countries
EUFOR, from 2004 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – 260 out of 2,150 soldiers from 25 countries
European Union
EUPM, from 2003 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – 13 out of 190 soldiers from 33 countries
EUPOL RD Congo, from 2007 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) – 4 out of 49 soldiers from 10 countries
EUBAM Rafah, from 2005 (Rafah Border Crossing) – 2 out of 22 soldiers from 9 countries
EUMM Georgia, from 2008 (Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia) – 21 out of 320 soldiers from 26 countries
Operation Atalanta, from 2008 (Gulf of Aden) – 202 soldiers
NATO
Military accession and integration liaison – Tirana, from 2002 (Albania) – 2 out of 11 officers from 4 countries
NATO HQ – Skopjie, from 2002 (Macedonia) – 1 out of 12 officers from 7 countries
NATO HQ – Sarajevo, from 2004 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – 20 out of 81 officers from 16 countries
NATO Training Mission – Iraq, from 2004 (Iraq) – 82 out of 169 soldiers from 15 countries
Operation Active Endeavour, from 2001 (Mediterranean and Strait of Gibraltar) – 220 soldiers
Operation Ocean Shield, from 2009 (Gulf of Aden) – 230 soldiers
Multinational force
MFO, from 1982 (Israel and Egypt) – 78 out of 1,700 soldiers from 11 countries
TIPH-2, from 1997 (West Bank) – 12 out of 37 soldiers from 6 countries
International cooperation and technical assistance
Italian Delegation of Experts, from 1997 (Albania) – 28 soldiers
Italian Military Mission of Technical Assistance, from 1988 (Malta) – 36 soldiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Armed_Forces

[Tazio]

One of our F-15E Strike Eagle's went down. One pilot rescued by rebels and returned to US forces, and the second pilot is still missing!

[Tazio]

This just in second pilot reported back in US hands. According to reports It was on a strike mission as opposed to Recon.
and went down because of mechanical failure
Here is the $40,000 question. How did we get these freakin' guys back so quickly without "boots on the ground"?


http://www.f15model.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/USAF_F-15E_Strike_Eagle_Iraq_1999.jpg

[chuck34]

Here is the $40,000 question. How did we get these freakin' guys back so quickly without "boots on the ground"?

Because the special forces guys wear sneakers?

[Tazio]

Because the special forces guys wear sneakers?
Not that it proves jack. But they are saying that they were picked up by an Osprey ;)

[Tazio]

Not that it proves jack. But they are saying that they were picked up by an Osprey ;)



http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/v22/v22_header.jpg

[chuck34]

Not that it proves jack. But they are saying that they were picked up by an Osprey ;)

I'm not saying that, and I'm not denying it either. All I'm saying is that to believe that we are going to have a no fly zone without some form of "Boots on the Ground" is a bit nieve.

[Mark]

Perhaps because there are loads of rebel combatants in the area which are friendly to US forces. It's not like they went down over enemy territory.

And yes, of course there will be special forces all over Libya! The best and easiest way to accurately target your weapons is to have eyes on the ground guiding in the air strikes.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps because there are loads of rebel combatants in the area which are friendly to US forces. It's not like they went down over enemy territory.

And yes, of course there will be special forces all over Libya! The best and easiest way to accurately target your weapons is to have eyes on the ground guiding in the air strikes.

Clearly, they have been there since well before the current campaign started. From the UK's point of view, why else were Chinooks from a special forces flight deployed to Malta at the end of February?

[markabilly]

Has the United Nations Participation Act been "struck down as unconstitutional"?

No, it was amended in 1949, so as to take out the language that Rollo mistakenly attempts to rely on, except that original language did not even support Rollo's position.
Under Civil Rights law, the fact that a statute exists does not excuse behavior pursuant to the statute, if the statute or action is unconstitutional--even if the statute has not been "struck down"

The actions were taken without lawful authority, and no doubt, americans will end up paying for this with their lives. One pilot now lost and the other had to be saved by rebel forces

at least Tony Martin was defending his territory and property; Obama can not even say that.

[Eki]

One of our F-15E Strike Eagle's went down.
They probably didn't realize the "no-fly zone" doesn't apply to them.

[ArrowsFA1]

No...
Thank you.

[Retro Formula 1]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/13932_308505260175_557350175_9533926_2701616_n.jpg

Don't panic Mr Mannering :)

[markabilly]

Has the United Nations Participation Act been "struck down as unconstitutional"?


No, .


Thank you.


But hey, Jude, don't ignore the rest.............

Have you never seen Cousin Vinny? Best movie ever made about lawyers. At the end, his girlfriend is asked a question about tires marks, and she says "NO"

So to parapharase her, "well, Hello, you can not answer that question cause that is impossible....."

See it is the amended act of 1949, not the one you reference.

It would be impossible "to strike down" the original act "as unconstitutional" due to the absence of standing and a justicible controversy. Or to make it simple, any such ruling would be moot and merely advisory, since that Act does not exist no more.

And for all their many sins, the Supreme Court does try to avoid making rulings that would be on "moot points".

As I quoted in the other thread, those amendments make it clear that the President can not do what he did under the UN Act as amended.

Duh,

Peacekeepers, yeah, maybe, if no more than a 1,000......remember Blackhawk Down, all the talk where they had to sit there and watch civilains be machine gunned, because they could not fire at them UNLESS FIRED UPON....and why there was no more than a thousand...... :rolleyes:

Hey that was when Hillary and Bill were president......she knew it then. Guess she needs a little impeachment herself. Accessory to the crime??? wonder if she got some sort of immunity?
Does this make the two (Hilliary and Obama) "war criminals"?

where is that court that was so gung ho to prosecute Bush and crew????

Where is the outcry from the leftist press??

[ArrowsFA1]

I was actually thanking you for answering a direct question with a direct answer

[ArrowsFA1]

I was actually thanking you for answering a direct question with a direct answer, but it seems it wasn't quite so direct after all :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

This has to be the worst idea ever. Not that killing that useless SOB Gaddafi would be a bad thing, but this no fly zone. I know PM Cameron was itching to show how tough he is, and Sarkozy is about the only guy in France in power with a set, but this was just a bad idea, and Hillary pushed Obama into it about 10 days too late...

If they were to do a no fly, they should have done it before Gaddafi took back over half the country. To do it now, it stupid, a waste of resources, and if they don't get rid of Gaddafi, they will have to deal with him in some form. Obama hasn't the stones to do it, so why even entertain any of this? The US people don't want more boots on the ground of another Islamic crap hole where their boys are targets.

And for what? I still have yet to see where the oil went to the US from Iraq. That war was about regime change and taking out a threat with WMD's (or at least that was the initial intelligence, we all know how that went south!). It sure as hell wasn't a war for cheap oil, because No one is shooting in Iraq now, the oil wells are flowing and the price is still up.

No, the US and the rest of the west should have looked the Saudi's, Egyptians, Turks and the rest of the Arab League and said, "we sell you stuff to defend yourselves with, solve this one with your own stuff. The Saudi's can write the check"....

Gaddafi is a clown, a thug, and a war criminal. Using weapons on his own people to hang onto power with mercenearies is the lowest he has gone since Lockerbie. The SOB should have been dealt with years go for all his work supporting terrorists but wasn't. Now Mr. NCAA Brackets is in power, and we have another consensus exercise that wont do squat.

Bad, bad, bad idea....because the only way the West looks anywhere competant is they have to ensure the rebels win and Gaddafi goes down, and they cant do that with a No Fly......and they don't have the balls to try to sell yet another war to a tired and annoyed populace.

Yet another reason Obama is starting to make John McCain look better....McCain wouldn't have been sucked into this without figured out what he needed for parameters. A winning war is what any nation needs to get involved, a clear goal. Here....there is no goal really....just some vague ideas....

God...he is even making Bill Clinton look better as a president this Obama fella...

[markabilly]

This has to be the worst idea ever. Not that killing that useless SOB Gaddafi would be a bad thing, but this no fly zone. I know PM Cameron was itching to show how tough he is, and Sarkozy is about the only guy in France in power with a set, but this was just a bad idea, and Hillary pushed Obama into it about 10 days too late...

If they were to do a no fly, they should have done it before Gaddafi took back over half the country. To do it now, it stupid, a waste of resources, and if they don't get rid of Gaddafi, they will have to deal with him in some form. Obama hasn't the stones to do it, so why even entertain any of this? The US people don't want more boots on the ground of another Islamic crap hole where their boys are targets.

And for what? I still have yet to see where the oil went to the US from Iraq. That war was about regime change and taking out a threat with WMD's (or at least that was the initial intelligence, we all know how that went south!). It sure as hell wasn't a war for cheap oil, because No one is shooting in Iraq now, the oil wells are flowing and the price is still up.

No, the US and the rest of the west should have looked the Saudi's, Egyptians, Turks and the rest of the Arab League and said, "we sell you stuff to defend yourselves with, solve this one with your own stuff. The Saudi's can write the check"....

Gaddafi is a clown, a thug, and a war criminal. Using weapons on his own people to hang onto power with mercenearies is the lowest he has gone since Lockerbie. The SOB should have been dealt with years go for all his work supporting terrorists but wasn't. Now Mr. NCAA Brackets is in power, and we have another consensus exercise that wont do squat.

Bad, bad, bad idea....because the only way the West looks anywhere competant is they have to ensure the rebels win and Gaddafi goes down, and they cant do that with a No Fly......and they don't have the balls to try to sell yet another war to a tired and annoyed populace.

Yet another reason Obama is starting to make John McCain look better....McCain wouldn't have been sucked into this without figured out what he needed for parameters. A winning war is what any nation needs to get involved, a clear goal. Here....there is no goal really....just some vague ideas....

God...he is even making Bill Clinton look better as a president this Obama fella...

Hush up, you will upset the Englander liberals, left, right, center or whatever moniker Dunnel and crew wish to hang on themselves....

The problem with these countries is like a dog chasing a car; once the dog catches it what is he gonna do with it.
Been almost 20 years since the first Gulf war started, and yet the whole mess has been in constant conflict for about the last 20 years.

How long have american tanks been sitting in Bagdad?
How long have americans been on the ground in Afganistan??
How much money have we spent??
How much have we been paid back for saving them from themselves?


How long would they be sitting in Libya?

How much more money shall we spend?

And when the man asks how many more shall we kill, the answer is more and more....

[Retro Formula 1]

Hush up, you will upset the Englander liberals, left, right, center or whatever moniker Dunnel and crew wish to hang on themselves....

The problem with these countries is like a dog chasing a car; once the dog catches it what is he gonna do with it.
Been almost 20 years since the first Gulf war started, and yet the whole mess has been in constant conflict for about the last 20 years.

How long have american tanks been sitting in Bagdad?
How long have americans been on the ground in Afganistan??
How much money have we spent??
How much have we been paid back for saving them from themselves?


How long would they be sitting in Libya?

How much more money shall we spend?

And when the man asks how many more shall we kill, the answer is more and more....

Difficult to argue with you.

However, if the UN and League of Arab Nations have agreed a strategy, we have to hope they have it right.

Personally, I think we should leave them to it and concentrate on our own Country but that's just me and my desire not to go meddleing in other Countries business.

[Tazio]

Hush up, you will upset the Englander liberals, left, right, center or whatever moniker Dunnel and crew wish to hang on themselves....

The problem with these countries is like a dog chasing a car; once the dog catches it what is he gonna do with it.
Been almost 20 years since the first Gulf war started, and yet the whole mess has been in constant conflict for about the last 20 years.

How long have american tanks been sitting in Bagdad?
How long have americans been on the ground in Afganistan??
How much money have we spent??
How much have we been paid back for saving them from themselves?


How long would they be sitting in Libya?

How much more money shall we spend?

And when the man asks how many more shall we kill, the answer is more and more....
I actually don't care what ya' 'awl boys are on about. Now that two more Arab nations and Turkey have jumped on the band wagon this morning, I'm pretty sure the rest of the coalition can handle it.

"Thank ya' 'awl boys for the help we'll take it from here :s mokin:

Actually the reason I'm posting is "Easy" is conspicuous by his absence. Is he ok? Did he just get fed up with this BS site!?

[BDunnell]

Hush up, you will upset the Englander liberals, left, right, center or whatever moniker Dunnel and crew wish to hang on themselves....

The problem with these countries is like a dog chasing a car; once the dog catches it what is he gonna do with it.
Been almost 20 years since the first Gulf war started, and yet the whole mess has been in constant conflict for about the last 20 years.

How long have american tanks been sitting in Bagdad?
How long have americans been on the ground in Afganistan??
How much money have we spent??
How much have we been paid back for saving them from themselves?


How long would they be sitting in Libya?

How much more money shall we spend?

And when the man asks how many more shall we kill, the answer is more and more....

You may very well be right about all of that. But I think you misunderstand the extent to which those of us who are not vehemently against what's going on in Libya are also vehemently in favour of it.

[Tazio]

Hush up, you will upset the Englander liberals, left, right, center or whatever moniker Dunnel and crew wish to hang on themselves....

The problem with these countries is like a dog chasing a car; once the dog catches it what is he gonna do with it.
Been almost 20 years since the first Gulf war started, and yet the whole mess has been in constant conflict for about the last 20 years.

How long have american tanks been sitting in Bagdad?
How long have americans been on the ground in Afganistan??
How much money have we spent??
How much have we been paid back for saving them from themselves?


How long would they be sitting in Libya?

How much more money shall we spend?

And when the man asks how many more shall we kill, the answer is more and more....
I liked your style so much more when you had a sense of humor.
Your scaring me 'cause I think you might be getting serious
You miss Easy don't you? I miss him too.
What's up with that?
Come on bro.
I quit keeping score after Cinco de Mayo.

Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant.

Or as Ratso Rizzo said just before he reached the promised land:
" 'ey Cowboy, I don't think I can walk no more."