Libya Conflict

[ICWS]

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-libya-airstrikes-unconstitutional-%e2%80%93-only-congress-can-declare-war/

What do you ladies and gentlemen think about this?

[Tazio]

Who cares? How do you say that in French? :s mokin:

[Rollo]

I think that this is someone who doesn't know how to read legislation.

As many in the administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the president to initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does not exist. According to this long-ignored section, ‘‘The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
- Ron Paul.

If you read the actual text of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution it says:
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
-
-
-
-
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;[/i]

In other words,Article I, Section 8 provides that the Congress has the Power to lay and collect Taxes for these various items; declaring and waging war is one of many.

The actual executive is charged to the power of the President himself under Article I, Section 2:
Article I, Section 8
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

As Commander in Chief it is nominally the President who makes the decisions, with consent of the Congress through appropriation bills. Congress itself is the legislative arm, not the executive arm of government in this three ring circus.

[markabilly]

Close Rollo, but no cigar......

Anyway, at least you try to read the constitution, whichappears to be more than obama do.....

for various historical reasons, which some presidents have ignored and gotten away--ONLY Congress may authorize war, be it by formal specific decalaration or by other authorization, such as spending money to wage the war. The prez is in charge as to how it shall be waged.

There is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over pesidential veto, that clearly addressed the unconstitutional actions of sending some good american boys to be dying to save the viets from the cong.....

that Resolution requires war must be authorized by Congress, except where the USA has been attacked........The USA was attacked on 911, and congress acted to authorize action within hours when Bush gave his televised speech;however, Libya did not attack the USA. Therefore by both the constitution and by the only other authroization under the War Powers Act, the president has violated the Consitution





Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that this is a coup d’etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business.

I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 1990s we established “no fly” zones and all manner of sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in attempt to force him from power. When that did not work — at a high cost in Iraqi lives — the US ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I do not need to remind my colleagues, was much higher even, in US military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again irresponsible voices are demanding that the US “do something” about it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the world at our own peril, and as we continue, we only accelerate our economic collapse.


Ron Paul spoke those words before the USA sent a hundred cruise missiles at Libya


So all you guys, including the hypocrites who condemn someone for using a gun to protect his house and/or his person, who wanna save Libya from itself, well, go ahead get yourselves signed up and go kick some KaDaffyass

Just leave the USA out of it.

[Eki]

Who's Ron Paul?

[ICWS]

Who's Ron Paul?

Sorry, I'm in a serious mood at the moment:

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

[Eki]

Libya did not attack the USA.
Neither did Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter.

[Valve Bounce]

Who cares? How do you say that in French? :s mokin:



Toughski Shytski!!

[driveace]

No country accually attacked the USA,it was terrorists supported by rouge countrys,but do you let these idiot dictators carry on killing its citizens,just because they wish to have a better way of life,and protest about it,or should we all stand by and let it happen?
Gaddafi and his son (both just as arrogant) are trying to crush any opposition,to carry on their rich(for them) dicatorship!

[Tazio]

With documentation, complete understanding, and admission Gaddafi approved killing hundreds of Europeans, Canadians and Americans by sabotaging Pan Am Flight #103 now commonly referred to as the Lockerbie air disasterter

[markabilly]

Neither did Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter.

first afganistan was so perceived as doing so by comforting Bin Laden, and second, in both cases, Congresss did act in advance.

Pan Am was some 30 years ago. Since japan attacked pearl Harbor, I guess we can bomb them whenever we feel like it. Same for GB as they attacked, indeed, invaded in 1812!!

[Rollo]

Close Rollo, but no cigar......

Anyway, at least you try to read the constitution, which appears to be more than obama do.....

for various historical reasons, which some presidents have ignored and gotten away--ONLY Congress may authorize war, be it by formal specific decalaration or by other authorization, such as spending money to wage the war. The prez is in charge as to how it shall be waged.

Perhaps you'd like to argue with the US Dept of Justice then:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power[b/], to use military force in situations of emergency. [b]Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.

I wasn't arguing from my opinion. I was arguing from the legal opinion of the US Justice Department. Unless of course you happen to have a higher authority to pick from. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 must itself in theory be constititional, and since that was the question in the first place, then the Constitution is the first and prime document to look at.

[markabilly]

the exact langauage that distinguihes that situtation from the memo *and Justice Depertment is NOT a legal authority, it is a bunch of prosecutors employed and serve at the pleasure of their boss, the President):



especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States. Second, we confirm that conclusion by reviewing the executive and judicial statements and decisions interpreting the Constitution and the President's powers under it. (Yeah VietNam, which is why the statute was passed that limits his power--DUH!!)Third, we analyze the relevant practice of the United States, including recent history, that supports the view that the President has the authority to deploy military force in response to emergency conditions such as those created by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Finally, we discuss congressional enactments that, in our view, acknowledge the President's plenary authority to use force to respond to the terrorist attack on the United States.



Still looking for that attack upon the territory and people of the USA!!!!

emergency?? what emergency??

Had plenty of time for the babbling, drooling politicos to act at the UN, but no time for Congress???

BTW the formal CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF WAR WITH IRAQ passed on October 16, 2002 before the invasion, and Bush, in the style of FDR, personally spoke to Congrees immediately after the attack.

[BDunnell]

Bush, in the style of FDR, personally spoke to Congrees immediately after the attack.

'In the style of FDR'? Bush spoke in the style of Bush and no-one else.

[markabilly]

'In the style of FDR'? Bush spoke in the style of Bush and no-one else.

well I was speakin of the timing and not of the sprewing. Lately, Obama seems to have acquired many of Bush's mannerisms when talking as well.

I read somewhere this style that Bush had adopted later while President, and now Obama seems to be using, is an early sign of Alzheimer's disease

Indeed, Obama has been saying "terreist".......just as Bush would say it

I am still wondering how I can get Dunnel off his soap box and saddle him up to do some frontline, point of the spear ground work in Libya.

[Captain VXR]

Its payback for Lockerbie and arming the IRA.

[Tazio]

Its payback for Lockerbie and arming the IRA.Sometimes the truth really hurts!

[markabilly]

Need to send at least 100 cruise missiles up theThames River, take out London Bridge, Windsor Castle, Parliament and the rest of London, esp. take out the "Royals"

Its payback for burning the White House in the War of 1812.

[Captain VXR]

Need to send at least 100 cruise missiles up theThames River, take out London Bridge, Windsor Castle, Parliament and the rest of London, esp. take out the "Royals"

Its payback for burning the White House in the War of 1812.
Except for there's been countless changes in leadership in the UK since 1812, whereas there haven't been any in Libya since Lockerbie and the troubles
And at least something is being done to try and halt the madman's murderous killing spree and lack of willingness to listen to his people's demands for him to step down.
The sooner he's dead, the better

[chuck34]

Who cares what Ron Paul has to say (I do actually) what about the President himself?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Guess that only applies to Iran then huh?

[Roamy]

The Pres believes in the New World Order which will be run by the UN - They told him to pop libya so that is all the authority he needs

[markabilly]

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=229992

Hard core liberal leftist Democratic Congressman, if ever, just had to say it:



“While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war.


“It is also worth noting that the President did not comment upon nor recognize that the Libyan government had declared a ceasefire in response to UNSC Resolution 1973. It was appropriate for the UN to speak about the situation. It was appropriate to establish an arms embargo and freeze Qaddafi’s considerable financial assets. But whether the U.S. takes military action is not for the UN alone to decide. There is a constitutional imperative in the United States with respect to deciding to commit our U.S. armed forces to war.


“Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent.


He then quotes Obama:




Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”




And he ain't the only liberal democrat mutterring the same thing, one such liberal noting, "He could consult with the Arab League, He could consult with the UN, but he can not even consult with his fellow Democrats in Congress," before sending a 100 missiles and 40 bombs....


Let me think: The president when sworn in, swears to protect and defend what...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


looks pretty clear....heck, they nearly impeached Nixon for a break-in where nobody got killed, they nearly impeached a president for not admitting he screwed some bimbo groupie, but neither of them killed anybody in the process (besides where in the US constitution does it say you can not have sex with some Bimbo, and if you, do, you got to confess??)


Now we have a president who clearly violated the constitution and killed some folks in the process, and even upset some liberals..... :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

here he is on TV:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42196497#42196497

along with some reporter trying to make many many excuses for Obama from past behavior of certain dead presidents.....(of course if this same mouthy Obama groupie reporter had been talking about Bush, her attitude would have been totally different no doubt)

It is about time to slam the door on this type of sorry crap.

Now what are we to do???

If we withdraw, we will have empowered a two bit dictator to boast about how he brought the USA (along with France, GB et al) to its knees, just like Saddam used to do.

It will take more than a few cruise missiles.....


Have we learned nothing from the lessons of history???

[Rollo]

Did any of you actually bother to read the specific provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973?



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

That has now been achieved:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576215073989153598.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
The president, with his letter, appeared to meet the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says only that in cases where the president doesn't seek prior approval from lawmakers, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and puts a 60 day deadline on such actions.

It's interesting to note that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 itself actually states in what capacity the power actually lies:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief is a result of Article II, Section 2 of the US Constituion.

Furthermore the "specific statutory authorization" comes about becuase the US is actually bound to the UN through the United Nations Participation Act (1945)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp
United Nations Participation Act
Section 6:
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

If you are going to argue about the Constitution, then arguing about the Constitution is in order. This was tested in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which decided that "while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not"

Seeing as this is not yet been subject to a formal declaration of war (and neither has any engagement except for the Korean War which only decided that it was in fact a war retroactively), then this is a matter for the Executive Branch of Government and not the Legislative Branch.

[Bob Riebe]

The Pres believes in the New World Order which will be run by the UN - They told him to pop libya so that is all the authority he needs
You mean Mr. "Qaddafi must leave" who blows up things while speaking out of the other side of his mouth (between his lower cheeks), "this is not about a regime change."--?

As the now thoroughly peed off Qaddafi is much closer, within striking range of France, giving them good reason for worry, at least France did not flip-flop like Obama, depending on which teleprompter read-out he was reading.

[markabilly]

Did any of you actually bother to read the specific provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973?



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001543----000-.html
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

That has now been achieved:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576215073989153598.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
The president, with his letter, appeared to meet the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says only that in cases where the president doesn't seek prior approval from lawmakers, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and puts a 60 day deadline on such actions.

It's interesting to note that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 itself actually states in what capacity the power actually lies:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-.html
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief is a result of Article II, Section 2 of the US Constituion.

Furthermore the "specific statutory authorization" comes about becuase the US is actually bound to the UN through the United Nations Participation Act (1945)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad031.asp
United Nations Participation Act
Section 6:
The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

If you are going to argue about the Constitution, then arguing about the Constitution is in order. This was tested in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which decided that "while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not"

Seeing as this is not yet been subject to a formal declaration of war (and neither has any engagement except for the Korean War which only decided that it was in fact a war retroactively), then this is a matter for the Executive Branch of Government and not the Legislative Branch.

let me repeat the war powers act, again, (Btw, there is vaery valid arument that certain provisions granting the president this power to act, without prior congressional approval are also unconstitutional)




(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.



(1)There was no specific statutory authorization to make war on Libya, and the passage of the War Powers Act, amends or prempts any earlier "acts" of Congress.



(2)Further, as I have already cited, NO treaty or "special agreement" may violate the Constitution. Covert v. Reid




(3) Of course, if I wanted to be really mean and be a kicking some serious buttocks, I could cite the amendment to that UN Act that you mention; an amendment that dissolves and yanks that so called "statutory" authorization that you mistakenly claim: :mad:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad032.asp





"SEC. 7. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President, upon i-ha (sic) request by the United Nations for cooperative action, and to the extent that he finds that it is consistent with the national interest to comply with such request' may authorize, in support of such activities of the United Nations as are specifically directed to the peaceful settlement of disputes and not involving the employment of armed forces contemplated by chapter VII

"(1) the detail to the United Nations, under such terms and conditions as the President shall determine, of personnel of the armed forces of the United States to serve as observers, guards, or in any noncombatant capacity, but in no event shall more than a total of one thousand of such personnel be so detailed at any tone(sic) time


This amendment means that stautory authorization that you mistakenly claim to exist, has disappearred......

:eek: BINGO, you lose again. Three strikes you be out....


Do you need me to define what these words mean:
Peaceful settlement.................not involving employment of armed forces............. observors, guards or in any non-combatant capacity..............not more than a thousand??????????????????????????? :rolleyes:



well, now opppssss :eek:


So he sends a letter after his liberal demo buddies start talking impeachment of their very own hero......this letter was required to be sent where the force was permitted under the War powers Act, but in this case, the War Powers Act does NOT permit this use of force. Opps again, Obama does not even get to first base....

So before you get all pompous and snotty and start lecturing on reading habits, you better start to practice what you preach.... :grenade:

[markabilly]

And of course, if I wanted to show deliberate intent, with malice a forethought, justifying punitive damages and a long prison term for some poor non-governmental person who can not try to claim executive privilege, all I need do is quote obama's own words, back when he had it right.....




Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”



Or the more detailed quote provided by chuck34:





2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)





The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.




As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.




As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.







why do you think why Bush was so fussy about the weapons of mass destruction?? and man you have criticised Bush in the past, but hey, I understand, Bush is a conservative republican white boy, and Obama is only a half-white, 'liberal" democrat, so close to the hearts of the left wingers everywhere, so hey, I can dig where you are trying to go and give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but the reality just do not get you there....


Indeed, the reality demonstrates grossly intentional, unconscionable neglect of those duties that he swore to undertake:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[markabilly]

Now what are we to do???

If we withdraw, we will have empowered a two bit dictator to boast about how he brought the USA (along with France, GB et al) to its knees, just like Saddam used to do.

It will take more than a few cruise missiles.....


Have we learned nothing from the lessons of history???


The definition of murder can be summarized as to kill without lawful authority, but so what??

The really tough question remains unanswered......what are we to do, even assuming the war powers act applied, Obama has got only 60 days before he has got to run for cover, which he is already talking about doing with all his latest talk about some other country being put in charge........duh

Never go to war half-assed. Either go all the way, make the other poor slob die for his country, over and over again, swift and sure, until none are left OR JUST STAY HOME!!!

[ArrowsFA1]

I read somewhere this style that Bush had adopted later while President, and now Obama seems to be using, is an early sign of Alzheimer's disease...
So in addition to being a muslim, a communist, a socialist, a marxist and anything else left of the extreme right, as well as sweeping aside the constitution, President Obama now has Alzheimers?

Really? We, or at least Americans, are supposed to believe all of this?

[chuck34]

Did any of you actually bother to read the specific provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973?

Did (then) Senator Obama (a touted Constitutional Scholar) bother to read the War Powers Resolution Act when he made his comments to the Boston Globe on December 20, 2007?

All I'm asking for is a bit of consistency.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush believed that there was an imminent threat to the US posed by Iraq. Obama has made no such declaration about Lybia. Check one for GWB, strike one for Obama.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush sought Congressional "Advice and Concent". Obama gave no briefings to anyone on the Hill about the possibility of going to war in Lybia (at least not that I've seen). In fact his Sec. of Defense gave testimony saying that it would be a bad idea to have a "no fly zone" in Lybia. Check two for GWB, strike two for Obama.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush asked for and recieved Congressional approval for the use of force in Iraq. Obama didn't even bother to tell the Speaker of the House that he was thinking about it. Check three for GWB, strike three for Obama.

Both got authorization from the UN and "partner nations". But that is not part of their Constitutional duties. It's nice to have, but not a leagally binding requirement.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush comes out ahead on this one. Now I know that you all are going to say that Bush was wrong about WMD, "Bush lied, people died", etc. Well that's not really up for discussion right not. The facts of the situation are. And the facts remain that Bush got approval for his actions, from the people who matter, Obama did not.

[Tazio]

Did (then) Senator Obama (a touted Constitutional Scholar) bother to read the War Powers Resolution Act when he made his comments to the Boston Globe on December 20, 2007?

All I'm asking for is a bit of consistency.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush believed that there was an imminent threat to the US posed by Iraq. Obama has made no such declaration about Lybia. Check one for GWB, strike one for Obama.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush sought Congressional "Advice and Concent". Obama gave no briefings to anyone on the Hill about the possibility of going to war in Lybia (at least not that I've seen). In fact his Sec. of Defense gave testimony saying that it would be a bad idea to have a "no fly zone" in Lybia. Check two for GWB, strike two for Obama.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush asked for and recieved Congressional approval for the use of force in Iraq. Obama didn't even bother to tell the Speaker of the House that he was thinking about it. Check three for GWB, strike three for Obama.

Both got authorization from the UN and "partner nations". But that is not part of their Constitutional duties. It's nice to have, but not a leagally binding requirement.

Like him or hate him, agree or disagree, right or wrong George W. Bush comes out ahead on this one. Now I know that you all are going to say that Bush was wrong about WMD, "Bush lied, people died", etc. Well that's not really up for discussion right not. The facts of the situation are. And the facts remain that Bush got approval for his actions, from the people who matter, Obama did not.Who is Bush? Why do I take a moral issue with him secreting Bin Ladins family out of the country when commercial flights barely got off the ground. Why are you licking dubayas boots?

[chuck34]

Who is Bush? Why do I take a moral issue with him secreting Bin Ladins family out of the country when commercial flights barely got off the ground. Why?

You don't like Bush? Fine. Doesn't matter to me.

The point to all this is that many on the "left" love to criticise Bush for this, that, and the other thing. Then when Obama does something even more illegal, it's just fine, he's acting on behalf of the "world community", or some other BS. All I want is a bit of consistency. Is that really too hard?

[Tazio]

Because he was an arrogant antagonistic @$$hole Bring it on I helped get Bin Ladins family out of the country before they got stoned to death!
Mission accomplished Colonel Powel you will lie for me. No big deal I'm looking for anything that is not consistant with that pricks misadventures. Ron Paul said it that makes it gospel!

Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!

[BDunnell]

You don't like Bush? Fine. Doesn't matter to me.

The point to all this is that many on the "left" love to criticise Bush for this, that, and the other thing. Then when Obama does something even more illegal, it's just fine, he's acting on behalf of the "world community", or some other BS. All I want is a bit of consistency. Is that really too hard?

It's not just on the left. Look at the world leaders who have supported the action against Libya — Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and so on. Not exactly champions of socialism. Say what you like, but the general attitude seems to be that Libya is different.

[BDunnell]

Because he was an arrogant antagonistic @$$hole Bring it on I helped get Bin Ladins family out of the country before they got stoned to death!
Mission accomplished Colonel Powel you will lie for me. No big deal I'm looking for anything that is not consistant with that pricks misadventures.Ron Paul said it that makes it gospel!

Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!

Can I add that it would be nice to have a higher proportion of comments in some of these threads that I understand? What on earth is this about?

[Tazio]

Can I add that it would be nice to have a higher proportion of comments in some of these threads that I understand? What on earth is this about?

I have a special dispensation from the Pope!

[markabilly]

Because he was an arrogant antagonistic @$$hole Bring it on I helped get Bin Ladins family out of the country before they got stoned to death!
Mission accomplished Colonel Powel you will lie for me. No big deal I'm looking for anything that is not consistant with that pricks misadventures. Ron Paul said it that makes it gospel!

Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!
Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Wi nning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winning!Winn ing!Winning!Winning!Winning!

see what happens when the truth and too much of Obama's kool aid collide.....

[chuck34]

It's not just on the left. Look at the world leaders who have supported the action against Libya — Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and so on. Not exactly champions of socialism. Say what you like, but the general attitude seems to be that Libya is different.

That's all fine and dandy. If you want to continue on with the parallels to Bush/Iraq, a simmilar list of world leaders could be pulled out. And maybe this intervention in Lybia is the right thing to do. I'm not really discussing that point right now. No, the point at hand is, are the actions taken by Obama in accordance with the US Constitution. So far, I'm saying no. Now I reserve the right to change my mind if something comes out that the Speaker of the House, President pro-tem of the Senate, and other leaders were briefed and gave, at least some form of, approval for these actions.

[chuck34]

Can I add that it would be nice to have a higher proportion of comments in some of these threads that I understand? What on earth is this about?

+1

[markabilly]

It's not just on the left. Look at the world leaders who have supported the action against Libya — Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and so on. Not exactly champions of socialism. Say what you like, but the general attitude seems to be that Libya is different.

Yep, it used to be a french colony and the french still miss it....and then there is the oil that the French think theyget now and will get in the future

or did you not bother to read the LA Times article????????????????????

as well as a little flag waving to keep themselves in office..

[ArrowsFA1]

...he's acting on behalf of the "world community", or some other BS. All I want is a bit of consistency. Is that really too hard?
You're asking for consistency when comparing very different circumstances. You want Obama to behave as Bush woud have done given the same circumstances.
Obama is not Bush, nor does he have the same foreign policy, and so Libya is not Iraq.

The operation in Iraq was carried out with the small (in terms of participant countries) US-led coalition that did not have widespread international support, and which was pursuing US forign policy aims. The fact that it was seen as a US operation caused much resentment and anger, particularly in the Arab world.

Obama has learned from those mistakes and that is why, when it came to Libya, any action had to be seen as being international in nature, and more particularly, as having the support of the Arab League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League). President Obama has been a big part of making that happen.

[BDunnell]

Yep, it used to be a french colony and the french still miss it....and then there is the oil that the French think theyget now and will get in the future

or did you not bother to read the LA Times article????????????????????

as well as a little flag waving to keep themselves in office..

Personally, as much as I dislike the politics of the governments of Sarkozy and Cameron, I think those who say they have gone into this for purely political reasons are wide of the mark. The vote in the House of Commons yesterday showed that.

[BDunnell]

You're asking for consistency when comparing very different circumstances. You want Obama to behave as Bush woud have done given the same circumstances.
Obama is not Bush, nor does he have the same foreign policy, and so Libya is not Iraq.

Exactly.

[Tazio]

Personally, as much as I dislike the politics of the governments of Sarkozy and Cameron, I think those who say they have gone into this for purely political reasons are wide of the mark. The vote in the House of Commons yesterday showed that.
+1 Adonis DNA :s mokin:

[markabilly]

So in addition to being a muslim, a communist, a socialist, a marxist and anything else left of the extreme right, as well as sweeping aside the constitution, President Obama now has Alzheimers?

Really? We, or at least Americans, are supposed to believe all of this?


Not me. I do not beleive it at all.

Indeed, as I said, "half-white, 'liberal" democrat, so close to the hearts of the left wingers everywhere", but I used the term "liberal" in the sense of that being his smoke screen, because if you follow the money, you would see that Obama was boot licking the shoes of Wall Street fat cats and corporations for years and years, as a Senator, far more so than McCain or even George W Jr., and has continued to do so even today as president.

But being half black, that has further contributed to making him appear as a hero to the left....(just "reverse" racism in actiion)....when the truth is far different--he is worse than Bush or mcCain when it comes to bootlicking.....

But lately, he has been saying "terreis"

Just like Bush Jr.

[chuck34]

You're asking for consistency when comparing very different circumstances. You want Obama to behave as Bush woud have done given the same circumstances.
Obama is not Bush, nor does he have the same foreign policy, and so Libya is not Iraq.

The operation in Iraq was carried out with the small (in terms of participant countries) US-led coalition that did not have widespread international support, and which was pursuing US forign policy aims. The fact that it was seen as a US operation caused much resentment and anger, particularly in the Arab world.

Obama has learned from those mistakes and that is why, when it came to Libya, any action had to be seen as being international in nature, and more particularly, as having the support of the Arab League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League). President Obama has been a big part of making that happen.

So you are ok with Obama acting on behalf of the "world community" in an international nature, damn the laws of The United States of America?

And how is Obama's foreign policy so much different than Bush's? Seems to be "protecting oil" just as much as Bush supposidly was.

[BDunnell]

+1 Adonis DNA :s mokin:

Excuse me, but are you writing in code?

[markabilly]

But as usual, posters like Arrows, Dunnel and so on, refuse to address the fact that Obama's actions were clearly unconstitutional and he used armed forces to kill without lawful authority.
Indeed, what makes Obama any different than Tony Martin, who shot those people breaking into his house? At least that was some form of self defense, but many here cried "murderer"

But the difference was that Tony Martin was in his house and they were coming in, whereas Mr. Obama sent missiles some two ot three thousand miles away into somebody else's house and he had no threat to fear from him or his country nor had the USA been attacked, nor was there any emergency as he had plenty of time to talk to everyone else but his own "fellow Democrats" in congress.

One went to jail; the other wants to talk executive privilege and presidential immunity.

Avoid the truth, run and hide.

Bottom line, those questions I posed remain unanswered.

[ArrowsFA1]

Not me. I do not beleive it at all.
Pleased to hear it.


So you are ok with Obama acting on behalf of the "world community" in an international nature, damn the laws of The United States of America?

And how is Obama's foreign policy so much different than Bush's? Seems to be "protecting oil" just as much as Bush supposidly was.


But as usual, posters like Arrows, Dunnel and so on, refuse to address the fact that Obama's actions were clearly unconstitutional and he used armed forces to kill without lawful authority.
Indeed, what makes Obama any different than Tony Martin, who shot those people breaking into his house? At least that was some form of self defense, but many here cried "murderer"

But the difference was that Tony Martin was in his house and they were coming in, whereas Mr. Obama sent missiles some two ot three thousand miles away into somebody else's house and he had no threat to fear from him or his country nor had the USA been attacked, nor was there any emergency as he had plenty of time to talk to everyone else but his own "fellow Democrats" in congress.

One went to jail; the other wants to talk executive privilege and presidential immunity.

Avoid the truth, run and hide.

Bottom line, those questions I posed remain unanswered.

[ArrowsFA1]

Not me. I do not beleive it at all.
Pleased to hear it :)


So you are ok with Obama acting on behalf of the "world community" in an international nature, damn the laws of The United States of America?

And how is Obama's foreign policy so much different than Bush's? Seems to be "protecting oil" just as much as Bush supposidly was.
I'm happier that a US President is working with the international community as opposed to undermining it in the mistaken belief that the world would come around eventually, and I don't think he threatens the US constitution by doing so.


But as usual, posters like Arrows, Dunnel and so on, refuse to address the fact that Obama's actions were clearly unconstitutional and he used armed forces to kill without lawful authority...
"Clearly" is debatable, and the lawful authority for the US to be a part of an international effort comes from the UN.

The fact that the UN is not mentioned in the constitution merely highlights one of the problems with adhering to a document written in the 1700's.

[BDunnell]

The only reason we are hearing all this bleating about the attacks on Libya from the American right is because the action has been taken by a President whose policies they don't agree with. Most of their views deserve no more credence than that — and I speak here as someone who doesn't necessarily think that a no-fly zone is a sensible solution to the problem.

[Tazio]

Excuse me, but are you writing in code?

Chuck was trying to make a case that at the bottom, and in all fairness to him it was a legitimate assertion. that Obama did not act in good faith as Dubaya did
Let's take apart what I mentioned that has nothing to do with either winning, Adonis DNA, or tigerblood

winning, Adonis DNA, and tigerblood these are all expressions that Charley Sheen used in his resent rantings ;)

"Because he was an arrogant antagonistic @$$hole Bring it on I helped get Bin Laden’s family out of the country before they got stoned to death!
Mission accomplished Colonel Powel you will lie for me. No big deal I'm looking for anything that is not consistent with that pricks misadventures. Ron Paul said it that makes it gospel!"

This narrative is in response to an assertion that Obama, somehow has less credibility than Dubaya
So the first line refers to dubaya’s, belligerent attitude and stupid comments, and the fact that
Bin laden’s disassociated family were in the USA on 9/11 and they were given an expeditious flight back to Saudi Arabia. All things considered they probably should have at least been interviewed because they might have some info about what his son might do. “Mission accomplished” is something that Bush may actually have been ignorant of (although I doubt it) It was when he landed on the Aircraft Carrier in a flight suite in an F16 The banner “Mission Accomplished” was conveniently situated that in the background of the podium where Bush was beating his chest after the hostilities of the assault were finished ,although as we know that was only the beginning.
Colin Powel reluctantly addressed the security council about our unquestionable documentation about WMD’s And how Nuclear Armament was eminent, and so on. I hope this helps clear up my admittedly obtuse comments but I was just trying to demonstrate the folly that a lot of people still buy into after 911.

[chuck34]

I'm happier that a US President is working with the international community as opposed to undermining it in the mistaken belief that the world would come around eventually, and I don't think he threatens the US constitution by doing so.

I'm happy that Obama has "international support". But to try and say that Bush did not is an outright lie. There were and still are many partner nations fighting in Iraq. There were UN resolutions (1441 and a follow-up that I can't remember right now) condeming Saddam's actions and promising "dire consequences" if he failed to comply. So BOTH Bush and Obama are on equal footing as far as "international support" goes.

This action may not threaten the US Constitution, per se. However that does not change the fact that it is fairly clearly an un-constitutional act.

[chuck34]

The only reason we are hearing all this bleating about the attacks on Libya from the American right is because the action has been taken by a President whose policies they don't agree with. Most of their views deserve no more credence than that — and I speak here as someone who doesn't necessarily think that a no-fly zone is a sensible solution to the problem.

That is not true. As I keep saying this is a clearly un-constitutional act. I don't care if it was done by a Republican, or Democrat President. Had Obama simply told the leaders in Congress that he was going to do this for XYZ reasons, and he would be seeking full Congressional approval within a given time frame, that would have been constitutional. The facts (as I know them now, subject to change) are that he did none of this. Instead he left the country (seemingly) without informing anyone what his plans are.

Honestly I have yet to make up my mind to wether this action is a good thing or not. Gaddafi clearly is a mad man that should go. But do we really know what we're getting into with the "rebels"? Have the last 8-10 years not tought us anything? No matter what side of the eisle you are on, surely you can learn that before you topple a dictator, there needs to be a CLEAR plan of what will happen next. We can all agree that "what happens next" sure hasn't been spelled out for Lybia, right?

[BDunnell]

That is not true. As I keep saying this is a clearly un-constitutional act. I don't care if it was done by a Republican, or Democrat President. Had Obama simply told the leaders in Congress that he was going to do this for XYZ reasons, and he would be seeking full Congressional approval within a given time frame, that would have been constitutional. The facts (as I know them now, subject to change) are that he did none of this. Instead he left the country (seemingly) without informing anyone what his plans are.

Honestly I have yet to make up my mind to wether this action is a good thing or not. Gaddafi clearly is a mad man that should go. But do we really know what we're getting into with the "rebels"? Have the last 8-10 years not tought us anything? No matter what side of the eisle you are on, surely you can learn that before you topple a dictator, there needs to be a CLEAR plan of what will happen next. We can all agree that "what happens next" sure hasn't been spelled out for Lybia, right?

Chuck, I should have added that I in no way lump you and your views in with those of certain other individuals here. My apologies.

[ArrowsFA1]

...So BOTH Bush and Obama are on equal footing as far as "international support" goes.
I disagree. While Bush certainly had some international support for his policy towards Iraq the limited nature of the support, and the implications of that, has been a lesson learned by Obama. The manner in which an international consensus was sought before taking action in Libya, and the form the action has taken, is clear evidence of that in my view.

[markabilly]

The only reason we are hearing all this bleating about the attacks on Libya from the American right is because the action has been taken by a President whose policies they don't agree with. Most of their views deserve no more credence than that — and I speak here as someone who doesn't necessarily think that a no-fly zone is a sensible solution to the problem.

Actually, I know you have this reading problem...........................but it appears there are many more liberal leftists democrats in congress fussing about Obama, than republicans fussing about this in Congress. :dozey:

[markabilly]

An interesting summary.....



(under the 1945 Act) The position of the Congress is fully protected by the requirement that the
military agreement to preserve the peace must be passed upon by Congress
before it becomes effective. Also, the obligation of the United States to
make forces available to the Security Council does not become effective
until the special agreement has been passed upon by Congress. n70

The restrictions on the President's power under section 6 to use armed force
were clarified by amendments adopted in 1949, allowing the President on his
own initiative to provide military forces to the United Nations for
"cooperative action." [*32] However, presidential discretion to deploy
these forces is subject to stringent conditions: they may serve only as
observers and guards and in a noncombatant capacity, and they cannot exceed
one thousand in number. n71 Moreover, in providing such troops to the United
Nations, the President shall assure that they not involve "the employment of
armed forces contemplated by chapter VII of the United Nations Charter." n72
Clearly, there is no opportunity in the UN Participation Act or its
amendments for unilateral military action by the President.






Period.
http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/06/msg00262.html

BTW, I do not quote this article as authority, but the footnotes in the article provide all the aurthority necessary. Worth reading if you have an open mind on the subject and a mind that has been programmed to block anything that is not in conformity with one's prejudices, esp on the left side who want to protect obama and/or want to go to war.............

Link seems to not work
Here is the cite:

89 The American Journal International Law 21 (January, 1995).

THE KOREAN WAR: ON WHAT LEGAL BASIS DID TRUMAN ACT?

Louis Fisher

[chuck34]

I disagree. While Bush certainly had some international support for his policy towards Iraq the limited nature of the support, and the implications of that, has been a lesson learned by Obama. The manner in which an international consensus was sought before taking action in Libya, and the form the action has taken, is clear evidence of that in my view.

We can disagree on the degree to which there was international support. Fine. Doesn't matter. They both had international support. Do you deny that?

And what in the H-E-Double hockey sticks does that have to do with the Constitutionality of the action? Have I missed something? Has the US Constitution been replaced with the UN Charter, and I just slept through that? The main point about determining Constitutionality is how much does Congress know, how much support/permission have they given, and has the President asked for some sort of formal resolution from the Congress? As of right now (again I reserve the right to change on this, as I suspect there will be more come out in the future) there appears to be little to no discussions with Congress about they Lybian situation. Therefore making any military action there, unconstitutional.

[ArrowsFA1]

We can disagree on the degree to which there was international support. Fine. Doesn't matter. They both had international support. Do you deny that?
But it does matter chuck because there is a clear distiction between the policies of Bush and Obama. That distinction relates to the level of support, the way in which that support was sought, and whether or not action would have gone ahead without it.

Bush's attitude was "you're either with us or against us, this is happening regardless". To him the UN was an inconvenient hurdle to overcome and the invasion would happen with UN support or without.

Obama sees international cooperation as essential for long term solutions to be found. There was never any prospect of unilateral US action in Libya, and he has been careful to avoid this being seen as a US-led operation.


And what in the H-E-Double hockey sticks does that have to do with the Constitutionality of the action?
You asked how Obama's foreign policy is so much different than Bush's :)

[anthonyvop]

Neither did Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter.

Actually they did....

[anthonyvop]

Who is Bush? Why do I take a moral issue with him secreting Bin Ladins family out of the country when commercial flights barely got off the ground. Why are you licking dubayas boots?


Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States

Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

(1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.25

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson... to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."26

Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.27

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.28 The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed.29 The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.30

The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.31


http://911.gnu-designs.com/Chapter_10.html


The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes. Michael Rolince interview (June 9, 2004). Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. See, e.g., FBI report of investigation, interview of Mohammed Saleh Bin Laden, Sept. 21, 2001. As Richard Clarke noted, long before 9/11 the FBI was following members of the Bin Ladin family in the United States closely. Richard Clarke testimony, Mar. 24, 2004. Two of the passengers on this flight had been the subjects of preliminary investigations by the FBI, but both their cases had been closed, in 1999 and March 2001, respectively, because the FBI had uncovered no derogatory information on either person linking them to terrorist activity. Their cases remained closed as of 9/11, were not reopened before they departed the country on this flight, and have not been reopened since. FBI electronic communication, Summary of Information Regarding Flights taken by Saudi Citizens Out of the U.S. Shortly After September 11, 2001, Oct. 29, 2003, pp. 9-10.
http://911.gnu-designs.com/Notes_10.html#idx_26

Now you are brought up to speed on that myth.

[chuck34]

But it does matter chuck because there is a clear distiction between the policies of Bush and Obama. That distinction relates to the level of support, the way in which that support was sought, and whether or not action would have gone ahead without it.

Bush's attitude was "you're either with us or against us, this is happening regardless". To him the UN was an inconvenient hurdle to overcome and the invasion would happen with UN support or without.

Obama sees international cooperation as essential for long term solutions to be found. There was never any prospect of unilateral US action in Libya, and he has been careful to avoid this being seen as a US-led operation.

So Obama is seen as some sort of "great leader" or whatever by the international community. Good for him. He still committed an un-constitutional act. As I said before, unless I missed the Constitution being superceded by the UN Charter, then that is what matters.


You asked how Obama's foreign policy is so much different than Bush's :)

Fair enough, didn't realise that was what you were getting at. Too many threads going on at the same time.

[BDunnell]

We can disagree on the degree to which there was international support. Fine. Doesn't matter. They both had international support. Do you deny that?

The nature of that international support is utterly different. What we see here is a far more broadly-based coalition, lacking the Tony Blair-style fawning support that was a feature of the 2003 Iraq campaign. The fact of the Libyan operations having achieved such widespread parliamentary backing in Britain when the matter was voted on illustrates to me the huge difference between the two. It is, surely, a fact that Iraq proved deeply politically divisive around the world, not least within national parliaments, and this Libyan campaign has not. Why is that, do you think?

[anthonyvop]

Not me. I do not beleive it at all.

Indeed, as I said, "half-white, 'liberal" democrat, so close to the hearts of the left wingers everywhere", but I used the term "liberal" in the sense of that being his smoke screen, because if you follow the money, you would see that Obama was boot licking the shoes of Wall Street fat cats and corporations for years and years, as a Senator, far more so than McCain or even George W Jr., and has continued to do so even today as president.
.

Out of Curiosity how does " boot licking the shoes of Wall Street fat cats and corporations for years and years," not make you a Liberal? It is socialism in it's basic form after all.

A real Conservative/Right Wing are against all Subsidies and Tax credits.

[BDunnell]

So Obama is seen as some sort of "great leader" or whatever by the international community. Good for him. He still committed an un-constitutional act. As I said before, unless I missed the Constitution being superceded by the UN Charter, then that is what matters.

Those of us from countries that don't have written constitutions — and, I like to think, wouldn't pay slavish obedience to them if we did — can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that this is unimportant compared with whether or not the action taken is right. In the case of Iraq in 2003, my objection was not so much to the fact of the UK Parliament not being given a proper vote on the matter (it did vote, but on a technicality, and the Government still won) but on the fact that I considered the military action to be unwise.

[BDunnell]

Out of Curiosity how does " boot licking the shoes of Wall Street fat cats and corporations for years and years," not make you a Liberal? It is socialism in it's basic form after all.

A real Conservative/Right Wing are against all Subsidies and Tax credits.

Your own interpretations of what people are politically are not to be trusted. After all, you think I am a socialist, don't you? The fact that I am not is, to you, neither here nor there, which I find a quite amazing attitude.

[ArrowsFA1]

So Obama is seen as some sort of "great leader" or whatever by the international community...
Maybe, in some quarters, but the point I'm trying to make is that he has a very different approach when it comes to foreign policy. Whether his approach proves to be any more or less effective only time will tell.

Fair enough, didn't realise that was what you were getting at. Too many threads going on at the same time.
I know the feeling :p : Still, always good to debate 'n' discuss even if we rarely agree :cool:

[ArrowsFA1]

Those of us from countries that don't have written constitutions — and, I like to think, wouldn't pay slavish obedience to them if we did — can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that this is unimportant compared with whether or not the action taken is right.
I agree with that :up:

[chuck34]

The nature of that international support is utterly different. What we see here is a far more broadly-based coalition, lacking the Tony Blair-style fawning support that was a feature of the 2003 Iraq campaign. The fact of the Libyan operations having achieved such widespread parliamentary backing in Britain when the matter was voted on illustrates to me the huge difference between the two. It is, surely, a fact that Iraq proved deeply politically divisive around the world, not least within national parliaments, and this Libyan campaign has not. Why is that, do you think?

I don't want this discussion to get sidetracked too far into what Bush did. That's a discussion for another thread on another day (look out here comes Eki :) ) So I'm going to leave most of this post without comment.

Except, "The fact of the Libyan operations having achieved such widespread parliamentary backing in Britain when the matter was voted on". At least The British parlament has had an oportunity to vote on this. The President acted without consent or even discussion with our Congress. And I can't figure out why (lots of "conspiracy theories" running around in my head) he hasn't, I'd bet it would have recieved widespread backing here too. Just like Bush got in 2002/3 (oops, shouldn't have brought that up ;) )

[BDunnell]

Except, "The fact of the Libyan operations having achieved such widespread parliamentary backing in Britain when the matter was voted on". At least The British parlament has had an oportunity to vote on this. The President acted without consent or even discussion with our Congress. And I can't figure out why (lots of "conspiracy theories" running around in my head) he hasn't, I'd bet it would have recieved widespread backing here too. Just like Bush got in 2002/3 (oops, shouldn't have brought that up ;) )

That is a very reasonable point.

[chuck34]

Those of us from countries that don't have written constitutions — and, I like to think, wouldn't pay slavish obedience to them if we did — can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that this is unimportant compared with whether or not the action taken is right. In the case of Iraq in 2003, my objection was not so much to the fact of the UK Parliament not being given a proper vote on the matter (it did vote, but on a technicality, and the Government still won) but on the fact that I considered the military action to be unwise.

How hard would it have been to go to Congress and ask for a vote of support for a "no fly zone"? I'm fairly certain that it would have gotten overwhelming support from both parties.

And please forgive me for being an unenlightened individual who still adhears to the rule of law.

[chuck34]

Maybe, in some quarters, but the point I'm trying to make is that he has a very different approach when it comes to foreign policy. Whether his approach proves to be any more or less effective only time will tell.

Time will tell. But then again I'm one of those "fools" who think that through the longer lens of history, Bush will be judged much less harshly than he is now.


I know the feeling :p : Still, always good to debate 'n' discuss even if we rarely agree :cool:

Honestly I like to debate 'n' discuss with people I don't agree with. If you are just in an echo chamber, what's the fun in that?

[BDunnell]

How hard would it have been to go to Congress and ask for a vote of support for a "no fly zone"? I'm fairly certain that it would have gotten overwhelming support from both parties.

And please forgive me for being an unenlightened individual who still adhears to the rule of law.

As I intimated above, it is an interesting question.

[chuck34]

As I intimated above, it is an interesting question.

Again, I have lots of conpiracy theories running around in my head. Unfortunately, once you eliminate the possible, only the impossible is left. I'm rapidly approaching some "impossible" answers on some of this.

Man, rapid fire resonding here. :)

[BDunnell]

Again, I have lots of conpiracy theories running around in my head. Unfortunately, once you eliminate the possible, only the impossible is left. I'm rapidly approaching some "impossible" answers on some of this.

Man, rapid fire resonding here. :)

I, on the other hand, would almost always discount conspiracy theories immediately. Very often, the truth is quite boring, though there are exceptions — into which camp the reason why Saddam Hussein was not eliminated in 1991 falls I don't know. But that's probably a digression too far.

[chuck34]

I, on the other hand, would almost always discount conspiracy theories immediately. Very often, the truth is quite boring, though there are exceptions — into which camp the reason why Saddam Hussein was not eliminated in 1991 falls I don't know. But that's probably a digression too far.

I'm trying to eliminate conspiracy theories here. I totally agree with you. It's just that there is one (notice I'm being very careful not to say what it is, because I don't like it) that really does seem to fit all the pieces together.

Saddam in '91? Easy, G.H.W.B. followed his mandate to the T. For good or bad down the road, that is what he did.

[chuck34]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/22/borger.obama.libya/index.html?hpt=T1


Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and who is no fan of this intervention, tells me that America's problem is an administration that is focused more on process than policy.

"This was based too much on getting support and not enough on a sustainable plan," he says. "I don't think we thought it through. Simply getting a coalition doesn't mean it's a good idea. Getting the Arab League doesn't make it a good idea. Multilateralism doesn't make the end better." In fact, it probably makes the intervention even more difficult to manage.


And if we win (whatever that means), who's left? Who are the Libyan rebels, if they are anything cohesive at all? And what if the civil war flares up after we tamp it down? Is that our problem? Or some other country's problem?

I'm not much of a fan of Gloria Borger, but some of this makes a lot of sence.

[BDunnell]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/22/borger.obama.libya/index.html?hpt=T1





I'm not much of a fan of Gloria Borger, but some of this makes a lot of sence.

Indeed, it articulates some of my concerns about the whole venture. But I am intrigued by this notion that Richard Haass quoted above puts forward of it being the US that somehow led the process that's ended up with a no-fly zone.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Personally, as much as I dislike the politics of the governments of Sarkozy and Cameron, I think those who say they have gone into this for purely political reasons are wide of the mark. The vote in the House of Commons yesterday showed that.

Agreed.

[Tazio]

I think the US should just abandon the endeavor.
Eliments of the Euopean coalition can handle this mission without all the political finger pointing
The domestic fear of the boogyman is really bumming everyone else out.


http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale-cdg1.jpg

[Bob Riebe]

Time will tell. But then again I'm one of those "fools" who think that through the longer lens of history, Bush will be judged much less harshly than he is now.

Sadly, I agree, although if he comes up smelling rotten in history, it will be because of his economic actions and not his military actions.

Now Obama.....

[Bob Riebe]

The nature of that international support is utterly different. What we see here is a far more broadly-based coalition, lacking the Tony Blair-style fawning support that was a feature of the 2003 Iraq campaign. The fact of the Libyan operations having achieved such widespread parliamentary backing in Britain when the matter was voted on illustrates to me the huge difference between the two. It is, surely, a fact that Iraq proved deeply politically divisive around the world, not least within national parliaments, and this Libyan campaign has not. Why is that, do you think?
Let's add an point here that annoyed me when Bush was still president.

Russia had serious problems with Chechnya, yet Bush spoke out of both side of his mouth. Condemning the Russians for protecting their borders.-- (Remember the real reason, as documents proved, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan was to prevent Muslims from doing in the Soviet Union's border states what they had done to the Shah and Carter.)--Among most conservatives I knew, that caused the already low esteem held for most of Bush's actions to sink even lower.

George Bush did not think beyond his preconceived opinions. Obviously as shown by the large support he got from the Polish military and other former eastern block states he was telling them something civilians never heard or the press did not find worth reporting because of their preconceived opinions; whatever George Bush was definitely not a uniter.
At the same time he was not a butt-kissing community organizer like Obama, but the monetary policies of neither was/is good for anyone.

[chuck34]

Sadly, I agree, although if he comes up smelling rotten in history, it will be because of his economic actions and not his military actions.

Now Obama.....

I would agree with you there.

[Eki]

George Bush was definitely not a uniter.

Amen to that. You can't call with a straight face George W Bush a world leader unless you scrape the bottom of the barrel and also call characters like Mohammed Gaddafi, Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein world leaders.

[anthonyvop]

Your own interpretations of what people are politically are not to be trusted. After all, you think I am a socialist, don't you? The fact that I am not is, to you, neither here nor there, which I find a quite amazing attitude.

But you are a socialist...That has been clearly defined.

[BDunnell]

But you are a socialist...That has been clearly defined.

Tony, no it has not. I am not a socialist. I know my points of view better than you do. How dare you presume to suggest that I am something I'm not.

[gloomyDAY]

I'm not sure why Obama is taking so much heat for establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. Yes, this will lead to more military action, but the importance of Libya can't be overstated. America needs the resources of this and various other countries in Africa. China has already established a much stronger foothold in the continent and the U.S. is playing catch-up to the Chinese. I think getting rid of M.G. is a great step to promoting democracy in the region, acquiring more resources for America, and enabling stronger political ties in the region.

Hell, this may be another place for me to consider as a duty station.

[ICWS]

I'm not sure why Obama is taking so much heat for establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. Yes, this will lead to more military action, but the importance of Libya can't be overstated. America needs the resources of this and various other countries in Africa. China has already established a much stronger foothold in the continent and the U.S. is playing catch-up to the Chinese. I think getting rid of M.G. is a great step to promoting democracy in the region, acquiring more resources for America, and enabling stronger political ties in the region.

Hell, this may be another place for me to consider as a duty station.

Obama is taking heat for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned on this thread.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and others are criticizing Obama for not consulting congress prior to directing the U.S. military to commence operations in Libya. In these guys' opinions, Obama committed an impeachable offense by doing this, since Article I, Section 8 mandates that the president receive authorization from Congress to declare acts of war. These guys believe the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya constitutes as an act of war, and thus needs Congressional authorization in order to do it.

From another standpoint, Obama is receiving criticism for continuing to spend a lot of money during a financial crisis by using military force in Libya. This to me is the main criticism of this Libya no-fly zone situation from an American perspective. Obama keeps adding to the budget deficit over-and-over again with domestic economic/social policies like his stimulus package and health care reform along with several other enacted programs/policies, so this use of military action in Libya is furthur adding more to the deficit.

Many other people are simply criticizing Obama due to the perception that Libya poses no threat to the United States, so it is none of our business to take military action against that nation's regime. The no-fly zone and subsequent air and sea strikes on Libya are the initial steps to eventually getting rid of Gaddafi and his regime (coup d'etat). It will be a matter of time before the U.S. invades Libya on land and has a Persian Gulf War-esque combat on its hands in order to end the Gaddafi regime, likely at the cost of millions of U.S. dollars and thousands of civilian and military lives.

Other people just like to criticize Obama whenever they can because it is a pretty hip thing to do right now, kinda like bashing Justin Bieber in the comments section of other bands' YouTube music videos ...

[markabilly]

Obama is taking heat for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned on this thread.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and others are criticizing Obama for not consulting congress prior to directing the U.S. military to commence operations in Libya. In these guys' opinions, Obama committed an impeachable offense by doing this, since Article I, Section 8 mandates that the president receive authorization from Congress to declare acts of war. These guys believe the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya constitutes as an act of war, and thus needs Congressional authorization in order to do it.

...

If were a simple no-fly zone, in theory, that would not be unconstitutional. In reality, the practical effect is to expose personnel to getting shot, which would be a violation of the constitution unless authorized.....but more importantly how do you stop that "getting shot"?

The sending of 100 cruise missiles et, al, is clearly an agressive act of war, and not permitted nor legal in this case

The result is not merely that he should be impeached.
The result is we are now kneck deep in another mess, for which we shall not be able to easily extract ourselves. We can stop per the First gulf war, and leave a crazed and now enboldened dictator in charge....

We can finish him off, and be left with another Iraq for how ever many years...

meanwhile we will have spent billions and received not one penny in return.

worse, we will have spent American lives, and just one of their lives is worth more than the entire stinking country of Libya.

[markabilly]

I'm not sure why Obama is taking so much heat for establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. Yes, this will lead to more military action, but the importance of Libya can't be overstated. America needs the resources of this and various other countries in Africa. China has already established a much stronger foothold in the continent and the U.S. is playing catch-up to the Chinese. I think getting rid of M.G. is a great step to promoting democracy in the region, acquiring more resources for America, and enabling stronger political ties in the region.

Hell, this may be another place for me to consider as a duty station.

hell yeah, go for it!!

Nothing more of an adrenaline rush than getting shot at for real, and shooting back in return.....although after awhile, you get sort of used to it...

[markabilly]

How dare you presume to suggest that I am something I'm not.

What is the big deal??

you do it all the time.

[markabilly]

See how it feels???

btw, dunnel, you keep referring to me as a right winger.

however, i am somewhat anti-war, which removes me from that stereotype as they all seem to want to march off to war.

and i say, somewhat, because i think war is an unfortunate fact of life, however, i do not believe in being run over or living on one's knees in the face of danger.

I do believe that a well armed populace, with people who have guns and know how to use them, is the best guard against things happening that should not.

I do not trust governments to do what is right. I got to see that upclose and personal, thanks to the result of JFK sending troops to nam.

Yep, despite the willingness of many to glorify JFK, it was him--NOT Nixon and NOT LBJ, that got us into the Nam.


This "unilateral" (no discussion with Congress) action of sending off cruise missiles by this particular president, who clearly preached to the contrary to get himself elected, is more evidence of the same.

What I do find so hypocritical is all this support on this forum for sending off those cruise missiles and so on, would not be there if Bush had done it. And worse, those actions had no color of law to support them. None.

You guys rant about Tony Martin, but do not blink an eye about a clear naked act of massive aggression that has no justification under American law --Indeed, under even "UN law" to justify or excuse it..

[BDunnell]

What I do find so hypocritical is all this support on this forum for sending off those cruise missiles and so on, would not be there if Bush had done it.

You might well be right, but in no way does this change my views. To those of us in Europe, on all sides of the political spectrum (for many conservatives detested him and found him laughable), Bush represented all that was worst about the USA, and quite rightly and understandably so.

[airshifter]

You might well be right, but in no way does this change my views. To those of us in Europe, on all sides of the political spectrum (for many conservatives detested him and found him laughable), Bush represented all that was worst about the USA, and quite rightly and understandably so.

Yet you seem to hate Bush regardless of his legal authority, and applaud Obama for failing to meet his legal and Constitutional obligations.

The US and world public, and much more importantly, the US Congress were aware of the intentions of Bush. Congress approved the actions taken, and UN Resolutions supported the legality of the actions taken. And in this instance I think it's important to remember that the ultimate decision to invade Iraq was the result of multiple UN resolutions failing to produce the desired result. The no fly zone in Iraq had cost the US and allies billions of dollars, yet the loss of civilian life was ongoing. Failure to comply with cease fire agreements was ongoing. Concern about regional stability still existed.

Obama has completely failed to properly address the mission in Libya, stating we are participating in the efforts to establish a no fly zone. Yet we have Naval officers giving briefings about US assets being used to attack ground vehicles that have nothing to do with flight operations of Libyan assets, anti aircraft or radar that could be used against UN alliance aircraft, or anything else "no fly zone" related.

It is not the US Presidents duty or obligation to make decisions those in Europe of any other part of the world agree with or like. It is his job to make decisions in the interest of the US. While I can agree that most in Congress and the US in general probably would have supported a true humanitarian cause, his failure to define and/or detail any US involvement has no excuse.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_libya_congress

A good recent article on what I think many in the US feel right now. I think everyone and especially Congress wants some answers.

[Tazio]

If it requires a marine invasion: "on the shores of Tripoli"
That's fine with me. if that is what it takes to bitch/slap that maniac
just send me the bill I'll cut a check in a heartbeat…… Winning :s mokin:

[Tazio]

You might well be right, but in no way does this change my views. To those of us in Europe, on all sides of the political spectrum (for many conservatives detested him and found him laughable), Bush represented all that was worst about the USA, and quite rightly and understandably so.
Quite right old bean
Don't let anybody say he was representative of the fine citizens of the USA. (Maybe the motor heads), He never had 50% 0f the support of Americans.
I'd site reasons but I don’t want to simply repeat what you stated, It all so obvious.

[ArrowsFA1]

It is not the US Presidents duty or obligation to make decisions those in Europe of any other part of the world agree with or like. It is his job to make decisions in the interest of the US.
True, that's his primary role but the US cannot isolate itself from the rest of the international community and make decisions which ignore the rest of the world.

That is one of the things that worries me about conservatives in the US; there seems to be a large element which would prefer to see the US retreat into a more isolationalist foreign policy ignoring the fact of globalisation.

[chuck34]

Yet you seem to hate Bush regardless of his legal authority, and applaud Obama for failing to meet his legal and Constitutional obligations.

The US and world public, and much more importantly, the US Congress were aware of the intentions of Bush. Congress approved the actions taken, and UN Resolutions supported the legality of the actions taken. And in this instance I think it's important to remember that the ultimate decision to invade Iraq was the result of multiple UN resolutions failing to produce the desired result. The no fly zone in Iraq had cost the US and allies billions of dollars, yet the loss of civilian life was ongoing. Failure to comply with cease fire agreements was ongoing. Concern about regional stability still existed.

Obama has completely failed to properly address the mission in Libya, stating we are participating in the efforts to establish a no fly zone. Yet we have Naval officers giving briefings about US assets being used to attack ground vehicles that have nothing to do with flight operations of Libyan assets, anti aircraft or radar that could be used against UN alliance aircraft, or anything else "no fly zone" related.

It is not the US Presidents duty or obligation to make decisions those in Europe of any other part of the world agree with or like. It is his job to make decisions in the interest of the US. While I can agree that most in Congress and the US in general probably would have supported a true humanitarian cause, his failure to define and/or detail any US involvement has no excuse.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_libya_congress

A good recent article on what I think many in the US feel right now. I think everyone and especially Congress wants some answers.

+1 Good post

[chuck34]

True, that's his primary role but the US cannot isolate itself from the rest of the international community and make decisions which ignore the rest of the world.

That is one of the things that worries me about conservatives in the US; there seems to be a large element which would prefer to see the US retreat into a more isolationalist foreign policy ignoring the fact of globalisation.

Yes, but at the same time, the President of the United States can not act on some sort of "World Authority" without consulting his own people, their representatives in Congress, or the Constitution that he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend".

And now you are saying that the US can not retreat into an isolationalist policy? Weren't you (I may be wrong about you specifically, but many on the "left" and particularly Europeans), not long ago, saying that the US should butt out and mind our own business?

You (in the "global" sense) want the US to stay out of situations that don't involve us. That is unless you want us to be involved. Can't you see why perhaps there are more and more people in the US that may be thinking to themselves "Man we have a lot of problems here. The rest of the world sure seems to be indecisive on a lot of stuff. Maybe we should concentrate on things here, and let them figure their own stuff out"?

[ArrowsFA1]

Weren't you (I may be wrong about you specifically, but many on the "left" and particularly Europeans), not long ago, saying that the US should butt out and mind our own business?
No, not me. That's not a view I hold. I may wish the US did things differently from time to time, but "butt out" entirely? Nope :)


Can't you see why perhaps there are more and more people in the US that may be thinking to themselves "Man we have a lot of problems here. The rest of the world sure seems to be indecisive on a lot of stuff. Maybe we should concentrate on things here, and let them figure their own stuff out"?
Absolutely. I can see and understand that view. However, given the US's position in the world (militarily & economically) it is simply not an option to withdraw to within US borders and not be involved beyond.

[BDunnell]

Weren't you (I may be wrong about you specifically, but many on the "left" and particularly Europeans), not long ago, saying that the US should butt out and mind our own business?

Nor is that a view I hold. However, I did, and do, think that the US should have gone about its business in a very different way with regard to certain recent international matters. US foreign policy, no matter what some might like to think, does not have to be carried out in the Bush manner.



You (in the "global" sense) want the US to stay out of situations that don't involve us. That is unless you want us to be involved. Can't you see why perhaps there are more and more people in the US that may be thinking to themselves "Man we have a lot of problems here. The rest of the world sure seems to be indecisive on a lot of stuff. Maybe we should concentrate on things here, and let them figure their own stuff out"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not opinion also — ridiculously — based in part on insufficient gratitude being expressed for what the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems that way to me — "you didn't like what we did before, so we won't bother again."

[chuck34]

No, not me. That's not a view I hold. I may wish the US did things differently from time to time, but "butt out" entirely? Nope :)

Ok. But you do realise that that opinion has been expressed?


Absolutely. I can see and understand that view. However, given the US's position in the world (militarily & economically) it is simply not an option to withdraw to within US borders and not be involved beyond.

Not that I'm arguing that doing so would be a good idea ... But why couldn't we? Why must the US be involved beyond our borders? We have plenty of raw materials. We have the manufacturing know-how, even if we maybe don't currently have the physical capabilities we once did. We have plenty of labor. What do we need from the rest of the world? In fact I have seen fairly convincing arguments as to the fact that the US being pretty much isolationist up to about WWII is the reason we have the military and economic powers we do now.

[chuck34]

Nor is that a view I hold. However, I did, and do, think that the US should have gone about its business in a very different way with regard to certain recent international matters. US foreign policy, no matter what some might like to think, does not have to be carried out in the Bush manner.

True, but US foreign policy also does not have to be carried out in the Obama manner either. In fact I would say that Bush was a bit closer to "right". Despite how it is seen now, try to put yourself back to 2003, Bush had support of the US people and of the UN to go into Iraq. Sure there was oposition, there always will be, but he did have support of both groups. I'm not sure Obama does. But we can't be sure because he didn't call for a vote from Congress before acting.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not opinion also — ridiculously — based in part on insufficient gratitude being expressed for what the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems that way to me — "you didn't like what we did before, so we won't bother again."

Maybe that is a bit of it. Is that so wrong? If we're only going to get grief over the things we do, what motivation is there to do anything further? You can only get beat up so long before it isn't worth it anymore. Over the last 10 years or so the US has gotten nothing but condemnation on the world scene. We get NO credit for our relief efforts in places like Indonesia, Hatti, Africa, and the like.

[BDunnell]

What do we need from the rest of the world?

Japanese cars?

[BDunnell]

Maybe that is a bit of it. Is that so wrong? If we're only going to get grief over the things we do, what motivation is there to do anything further? You can only get beat up so long before it isn't worth it anymore. Over the last 10 years or so the US has gotten nothing but condemnation on the world scene. We get NO credit for our relief efforts in places like Indonesia, Hatti, Africa, and the like.

Nor does any nation, because relief efforts are 'unglamorous'.

[chuck34]

Japanese cars?

Why do we need them?

[chuck34]

Nor does any nation, because relief efforts are 'unglamorous'.

But the level of relief provided by the US is quite a bit greater than any other nation. I guess that doesn't count for anything though?

[BDunnell]

Why do we need them?

Well, under the free market system, they have clearly proved popular. I am dead set against restrictive trade practices, especially (and I am not referring to you here) when they are expounded hypocritically by right-wingers.

[BDunnell]

But the level of relief provided by the US is quite a bit greater than any other nation. I guess that doesn't count for anything though?

It's not a competition.

[chuck34]

Well, under the free market system, they have clearly proved popular. I am dead set against restrictive trade practices, especially (and I am not referring to you here) when they are expounded hypocritically by right-wingers.

I also am a free market guy. And, yes, Japanese cars have proved popular. There are many factors that contributed to that, that are well outside the scope of this discussion. I am also against restrictive trade practices, and don't see the need for them.

However, if you actually compare "Japanese" vs "American" cars and look at where the parts were made and where they were asembled, you would see that those definitions are not what they seem.

Suffice it to say that I think that there are plenty of things that could be done to make US made products much more attractive to Americans than using restrictive trade. But we are well outside the scope of the Constitutionality of the Lybian airstrikes.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ok. But you do realise that that opinion has been expressed?
Of course.


Not that I'm arguing that doing so would be a good idea ... But why couldn't we? Why must the US be involved beyond our borders?
The short and simple answer is that the US, like other nations, has international treaties and obligations that successive governments have supported and agreed to.

In theory any government could simply withdraw from and break those agreements, but in practice is it even possible to imagine the consequences of doing so? For one thing the US has borders north and south. What would be the implications on your doorstep alone?

[chuck34]

It's not a competition.

No, but honestly some credit ever now and then isn't bad either.

[chuck34]

Of course.


The short and simple answer is that the US, like other nations, has international treaties and obligations that successive governments have supported and agreed to.

In theory any government could simply withdraw from and break those agreements, but in practice is it even possible to imagine the consequences of doing so? For one thing the US has borders north and south. What would be the implications on your doorstep alone?

Again we're getting quite far afield of the actual topic. So I'll just say that I don't believe the consequences would be dire at all. In fact the first thing that would get a boost would be our employment number (real un-employment stands at close to 20% right now) which is probably the biggest issue we're facing.

[ArrowsFA1]

Again we're getting quite far afield of the actual topic...
Ok, but it may be worth taking a look at this - http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm

[BDunnell]

No, but honestly some credit ever now and then isn't bad either.

I don't expect my own country, the UK, to receive 'credit' for its actions.

[chuck34]

Ok, but it may be worth taking a look at this - http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm

Yep, lots of treaties out there. Lots of them could readily be described as "entangling alliances" which a great man once warned us against. And I'll bet that most, if not, all of them have force majeure clauses in them. And it wouldn't take a particularly skilled lawyer to argue that the current financial crisis would count as force majeure.

[ArrowsFA1]

Yep, lots of treaties out there. Lots of them could readily be described as "entangling alliances" which a great man once warned us against.
But that comment was made in 1801 by the leader of a very new nation. The world, not just the US, has changed in the passing 210yrs and wishing it to be as it once was cannot make it so.

(Not sure if that's more Star Wars than Shakespeare :p )

[chuck34]

But that comment was made in 1801 by the leader of a very new nation. The world, not just the US, has changed in the passing 210yrs and wishing it to be as it once was cannot make it so.

(Not sure if that's more Star Wars than Shakespeare :p )

Of course things have changed. But I'm not sure the wisdom of the advice has. The advice was given in full knowlege that things would change, in fact, predicated upon that fact.

[chuck34]

True, but US foreign policy also does not have to be carried out in the Obama manner either. In fact I would say that Bush was a bit closer to "right". Despite how it is seen now, try to put yourself back to 2003, Bush had support of the US people and of the UN to go into Iraq. Sure there was oposition, there always will be, but he did have support of both groups. I'm not sure Obama does. But we can't be sure because he didn't call for a vote from Congress before acting.

Apparently the answer is that Obama does not have the support of the US people.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx

Support for action in Lybia on March 21, 2011 -- 47%
Support for action in Iraq on March 20, 2003 -- 76%

Interesting ....

[anthonyvop]

Tony, no it has not. I am not a socialist. I know my points of view better than you do. How dare you presume to suggest that I am something I'm not.

Because whether you want to believe it or not your views fall squarely on the side of socialism.

[BDunnell]

Because whether you want to believe it or not your views fall squarely on the side of socialism.

I am not going to go over this again with you.

[anthonyvop]

I am not going to go over this again with you.

Good. Your illogical rants were getting tiresome.

[BDunnell]

Good. Your illogical rants were getting tiresome.

:laugh:

[airshifter]

Apparently the answer is that Obama does not have the support of the US people.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx

Support for action in Lybia on March 21, 2011 -- 47%
Support for action in Iraq on March 20, 2003 -- 76%

Interesting ....

Being that Obama still hasn't addressed what exactly our intentions are in Libya, this comes as no surpise to me. The supposed peaceful President is walking into what eventually caused Bush to have to put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

Yet another amphibious assualt ship departed from our area.. a ship loaded with combat ready Marines. There are already ships carrying Marines from the 26th MEU on station. These are "boots on the ground" units and their supporting equipment, not "no fly zone" units. This is starting to stink more by the minute IMHO.

On a note regarding the downed pilot, it was a TRAP team from the 26th MEU that rescued the downed aviator.

[BDunnell]

Being that Obama still hasn't addressed what exactly our intentions are in Libya, this comes as no surpise to me.

No-one in any country has come up with an adequate explanation.

[markabilly]

Being that Obama still hasn't addressed what exactly our intentions are in Libya, this comes as no surpise to me. The supposed peaceful President is walking into what eventually caused Bush to have to put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

Yet another amphibious assualt ship departed from our area.. a ship loaded with combat ready Marines. There are already ships carrying Marines from the 26th MEU on station. These are "boots on the ground" units and their supporting equipment, not "no fly zone" units. This is starting to stink more by the minute IMHO.

On a note regarding the downed pilot, it was a TRAP team from the 26th MEU that rescued the downed aviator.

Duh, as I was saying....

oh well, meet the new boss, same as the old boss......we won't get fooled again....

[555-04Q2]

No-one in any country has come up with an adequate explanation.

One word explains everything...OIL.

[chuck34]

One word explains everything...OIL.

Usually I'd probably agree. But then why aren't we doing the same thing in Bahrain?

[BDunnell]

Usually I'd probably agree. But then why aren't we doing the same thing in Bahrain?

Indeed. It reinforces my view that the sentiment behind the Libya campaign on the part of the nations involved is genuine. For that matter, I actually thought that the sentiment behind the 2003 Iraq conflict on the part of those who supported it was genuine, but, in that case, highly misguided and born of a religious zeal on the part of the two main cheerleaders.

[markabilly]

Yep, lots of treaties out there. Lots of them could readily be described as "entangling alliances" which a great man once warned us against. And I'll bet that most, if not, all of them have force majeure clauses in them. And it wouldn't take a particularly skilled lawyer to argue that the current financial crisis would count as force majeure.


But that comment was made in 1801 by the leader of a very new nation. The world, not just the US, has changed in the passing 210yrs and wishing it to be as it once was cannot make it so.

(Not sure if that's more Star Wars than Shakespeare :p )

To the extent this reference is to George Washington, show some respect for the greatest leader in the history of mankind during the last two thousand or more years.

Puts all the rest in the shade, not only for what he did, but what he did not do.

Unfortunately, countries who have reached greatness, ultimately fail because they forget the principles that made them great.

Just look at those Englanders and how far they have fallen in the last 70 years, because they abandoned that which permitted them to dominate the world for nearly 400 years, a bright fire that has now become a burned out ember in the history of mankind.

yeah things change, but not always for the best......

[markabilly]

Indeed. It reinforces my view that the sentiment behind the Libya campaign on the part of the nations involved is genuine. For that matter, I actually thought that the sentiment behind the 2003 Iraq conflict on the part of those who supported it was genuine, but, in that case, highly misguided and born of a religious zeal on the part of the two main cheerleaders.


A statment that results from shallow thinking; it sounds truly profound, but actually contradicts itself-----"genuine" "but highly misguided and born of religious zeal" ----- just is simply out of touch with reality.

The reality is that it has to do with oil, money, power and old men in charge who forget or never knew what it is to actually go to war and suffer those consequences, such that they are more than willing to send others, as long as it is not them in the swamp.

They want to send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How many should we kill?"
Ooh, they only answer, "More! more! more!"

[Eki]

Sorry, I'm in a serious mood at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Ron Paul sounded like a name of a porn star.

[Hondo]

Oil contracts aside, I would imagine France, Britain, and Germany saw Gaddafi's ouster as inevetible and sort of made comments to that end at the beginning of all this. Unfortunately, Gaddafi got his ducks in a row, pulled on his ruthless panties, and went after the rebels, kicking the snot out of them along the way. After the Kuwait invasion, many in Iraq read between the lines and thought Daddy Bush would actively support a popular revolution aganst Saddam if one were started. Well, they started one, Bush did nothing, they became a mudhole, Bush was no longer trusted, and indeed mocked by Saddam. I think the same thing happened here but the west doesn't want their credibility shot so now they have to, sorta, kinda support the rebels. So now everybody wants a No Fly Zone because it sounds active, quick and clean and even the Arab Leauge wants one, but no one wants to be the one to do it. About that time they see Obama stumbling around outside looking for his Whitehouse keys he lost. They call him over and inform him he has been given the honor of leading the No Fly effort in Libya. Swelling with pride because his peers finally recognized his superior leadership, Obama shoots down a truck, losing only 1 F-15E Strike Eagle in the deal. A shrewd bargain to be sure. Now everybody starts bailing on the idea and they realize that the the No Fly mission was not very well defined. The UN won't take it and the Arab League doesn't want it either so it gets dumped on NATO. Germany promptly bails on NATO leaving, well leaving Britain, Canada, and Obama. Obama and Britain immediately vote Canada in charge and haul ass for elsewhere while Canada decides to change it's government. So now you have the Brits shooting down amoured vehicles in the No Fly zone under an authority that isn't clear and a mandate just as muddy. Obama, who has promised no "boots on the ground" has issued an executive order that all troops on the way to Libya must wear tennis shoes or be bare foot at all time while in country.

In a nut shell Libya has become a big deal because too many "anti-dictator" types ran their mouths way too early, about supporting a change, misunderstanding both the power dictators do wield and the popularity they do have amongst their people. Once Gaddafi started seriously fighting back The people that stood in support either had to pony up some support or lose any credibility they have left in the Middle East. If they fail to actively support the popular revolution, they will have little chance to stop the jihadist government that will move into place after the revolution. That's why the west is messing with Libya although the cause is already lost just in the manner in which we do business. If and when elections come, there will be many dead and missing moderate candidates and voters and more jihadists to choose from.

[BDunnell]

Let's not forget one other factor that's being ignored. In spite of the regime's attempts at restriction, the amount of information coming out of Libya about the governmental forces' actions since the start of the uprising, not least via social media of one form or another, has been fairly great. It's been widely disseminated by the 'traditional' media, and thus gained a wide audience. This has helped build a groundswell of public opinion in certain countries that 'something must be done'. There is surely no doubt that his fellow world leaders fully expected Gaddafi to have been well gone by now, and I don't blame them for thinking that way.

[Hondo]

Gaddafi is not afraid to do whatever he thinks he needs to do to keep power. All of them know of western distaste for long conflicts.

[BDunnell]

Gaddafi is not afraid to do whatever he thinks he needs to do to keep power. All of them know of western distaste for long conflicts.

Even so, I think the expectation was that his forces would go over to the rebel side en masse, continue not to attack the rebels, or be ineffective enough to allow a rebel victory. And for a while it did look that way.

[Hondo]

I never thought Gaddafi was in danger. He's been down this road too many times before. You'll always have minor side swapping at the start of something like this. When you consider the tribes and sects involved in any Middle East of African conflict, what's in there now may be far, far better than what tries to replace it. The only thing that is going to replace any sitting government in the Middle East or North Africa right now is Jihadist Islam. Don't believe that, roll your eyes, laugh, I don't care...but thats what you're going to get because they are willing to do, for as long as they have to do it, anything they have to do to take the power. If they have to cut the ears off of every baby born for the next 2 years to take power, they'll do it. We won't. That's why they win.

[ICWS]

Ron Paul sounded like a name of a porn star.

I believe you're thinking of Ron Jeremy:

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

[Roamy]

Are you guys sh!tting me!! I am looking at Libya on Google Earth. Jesus H. Christ get over there and make the pales their own country. We can solve all the problems

[Bob Riebe]

Let's not forget one other factor that's being ignored. In spite of the regime's attempts at restriction, the amount of information coming out of Libya about the governmental forces' actions since the start of the uprising, not least via social media of one form or another, has been fairly great. It's been widely disseminated by the 'traditional' media, and thus gained a wide audience. This has helped build a groundswell of public opinion in certain countries that 'something must be done'. There is surely no doubt that his fellow world leaders fully expected Gaddafi to have been well gone by now, and I don't blame them for thinking that way.

Why?
Libya had the highest standard of living, and women had freedom, those are the catalyst for revolution?

[Bob Riebe]

Are you guys sh!tting me!! I am looking at Libya on Google Earth. Jesus H. Christ get over there and make the pales their own country. We can solve all the problems?

[Hondo]

Are you guys sh!tting me!! I am looking at Libya on Google Earth. Jesus H. Christ get over there and make the pales their own country. We can solve all the problems


The Palestinians were never the real problem over there, merely an excuse to have a problem over there. Something to keep the Israelis busy and the Arabs amused. Shortly, after a few more Hammas rockets, you will have Israelis and the dead. Anyone still claiming Palestinian anything status will be on jets to Europe seeking political asylum, heading for Somalia, or promising the Israelis they'll be good citizens if given another chance. The Arab, Persian, and Egyptian nations, citing their own internal problems, will once and for all wash their hands of the problem the Palestinians have become to them.

[BDunnell]

Why?
Libya had the highest standard of living, and women had freedom, those are the catalyst for revolution?

Yes, we know you read one set of statistics and have managed to remember them. They may not be the catalysts for revolution, but neither would they stop one taking place.

[BDunnell]

I never thought Gaddafi was in danger. He's been down this road too many times before.

Not in this manner he hasn't. This was very different.

[Hondo]

I don't think it's fair to call it a popular revolution any longer with the USA and Britain flying air to ground missions against Libyan positions and troops. All gains rebel forces have made lately have been due to those.

[BDunnell]

I don't think it's fair to call it a popular revolution any longer with the USA and Britain flying air to ground missions against Libyan positions and troops. All gains rebel forces have made lately have been due to those.

Agreed.

[Bob Riebe]

Yes, we know you read one set of statistics and have managed to remember them. They may not be the catalysts for revolution, but neither would they stop one taking place.
The truth really seems to bother you.

[BDunnell]

The truth really seems to bother you.

Having been to Libya myself, as I said before, I can see there is some degree of truth in the information you repeated. However, your defence of the regime on the grounds of having read a couple of things on the internet — one of which, regarding the committees set up by Gaddafi, you accepted at face value without considering the reported reality regarding these bodies — is, if I may say so, stretching credulity a little far.

[airshifter]

Maybe no boots on the ground, but for all practical purposes we are flying close air support for the rebels.

This thing stinks more by the day.

The powers at be should have at least admitted their intentions and given Ghadafi a couple days to beat feet and give up. It appears more and more this thing won't stop until he is removed from power. They should have had the backbone to admit that.

At this point if they don't remove him from power, the rebels will pay hell in retaliation from Ghadafi.

[Bob Riebe]

Having been to Libya myself, as I said before, I can see there is some degree of truth in the information you repeated. However, your defence of the regime on the grounds of having read a couple of things on the internet — one of which, regarding the committees set up by Gaddafi, you accepted at face value without considering the reported reality regarding these bodies — is, if I may say so, stretching credulity a little far.
If the reports are false, prove it.

Otherwise it it reminiscent of a child pouting because they do not play by his version of the rules.

Compared to Iraq, there is zero reason to go into Libya if the leader is the reason; therefore it makes anyone who defends this but made/makes insulting remarks about going into Iraq, a hypocrite based on personal prejudices.
--------------------

If the Obama wanted Qadaffi out, he should have used the same tactics Reagan did and it would be done.

-------------------

Obama is a pathetic community organizer, and that is all. His moves are emphasizing that with each passing day.

------------------------------
Found this little bit of Libyan war community organizing on the Scotsman news:

Published Date: 21 March 2011
By JANE BRADLEY
A ROW has broken out over claims that coalition air strikes have killed civilians as well as government forces in Libya.
Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa appeared to suggest allied forces had gone beyond the measures to protect civilians called for by his organisation last weekend and authorised by Thursday's UN resolution.

"What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone," Mr Mussa
said. "What we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."

[motoramadanuk]

No country accually attacked the USA,it was terrorists supported by rouge countrys,but do you let these idiot dictators carry on killing its citizens,just because they wish to have a better way of life,and protest about it,or should we all stand by and let it happen?
Gaddafi and his son (both just as arrogant) are trying to crush any opposition,to carry on their rich(for them) dicatorship!

you yanks are so funny. one day you're bitchin about a mosque in ny and now you're the friends of those opposed to qaddafi and in a few weeks when these very same muslims you decry every single day (reich wing america) you will be attacking them. I am only surprised that you have left Algeria and Egypt alone so long. Three whole weeks.
Waiting on that church from ohio to catch on? westboro??

[555-04Q2]

Usually I'd probably agree. But then why aren't we doing the same thing in Bahrain?

Because Bahrain has not degenerated the way Libya has. Trust me, if Bahrain gets worse, they will start "caring".

Zimbabwe is a perfect example of how countries without oil are ignored. It took 2 weeks to decide to bomb Libya, yet 10 years later Zimbabwe is unmolested, and their crimes against their own people are far worse than what Ghaddafi is doing. And there are plenty other places in Africa with worse attrocities than Libya, that are not being dealt with. Its OIL, nothing else.

[Mark]

Rebels are claiming victory in Sert, however it appears what happened is that NATO bombed Gadaffi's troops there and they fled and the rebels just drove in!

[ArrowsFA1]

If the Obama wanted Qadaffi out, he should have used the same tactics Reagan did and it would be done.
Ah yes, the world would be a far better place with the likes of Reagan & Thatcher in charge :crazy: :p :

(What's with refering to your President as "the Obama" :confused :)

[Hondo]

If the reports are false, prove it.

Otherwise it it reminiscent of a child pouting because they do not play by his version of the rules.

Compared to Iraq, there is zero reason to go into Libya if the leader is the reason; therefore it makes anyone who defends this but made/makes insulting remarks about going into Iraq, a hypocrite based on personal prejudices.
--------------------

If the Obama wanted Qadaffi out, he should have used the same tactics Reagan did and it would be done.

-------------------

Obama is a pathetic community organizer, and that is all. His moves are emphasizing that with each passing day.

------------------------------
Found this little bit of Libyan war community organizing on the Scotsman news:

Published Date: 21 March 2011
By JANE BRADLEY
A ROW has broken out over claims that coalition air strikes have killed civilians as well as government forces in Libya.
Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa appeared to suggest allied forces had gone beyond the measures to protect civilians called for by his organisation last weekend and authorised by Thursday's UN resolution.

"What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone," Mr Mussa
said. "What we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."

With all due respect, pi$$ on you Mr. Mussa. If you want to call for action and want that action to happen a certain way, then do it yourselves you gutless b@stards.

I'm starting to think this whole western involvement in the Libya uprising is nothing more than the old magician's trick of misdirection. Keep the crowd watching the right hand so the forgotten about left hand can do what it wants to do. What's the real deal being done?

[Bob Riebe]

(What's with refering to your President as "the Obama" :confused :)

It is a talk show term from election, post-election. days when Obama was viewed as a King Midas whose simple presence would make all bad things go away.
All the Obama had to do was read from his teleprompter and evil was vanquished.

[ArrowsFA1]

It is a talk show term from election, post-election. days...
Perhaps it's just as well it wasn't applied to the previous President :p

[BDunnell]

Perhaps it's just as well it wasn't applied to the previous President :p

It was, just with slightly different wording.

[Hondo]

Col. Gaddafi has the rebels on the run again with a flanking ground counter-attack. The rebels, who are not operating with any unity of command or real training cannot stand up to trained forces. I hope all you people hopping up and down for NATO to go in there and take the place are serious and sure you know what you're getting into, because that's exactly what it's going to take. If Gaddafi wins in Libya, that will also shut down the mini-revs going on in the other Arab countries.

[Bob Riebe]

Col. Gaddafi has the rebels on the run again with a flanking ground counter-attack. The rebels, who are not operating with any unity of command or real training cannot stand up to trained forces. I hope all you people hopping up and down for NATO to go in there and take the place are serious and sure you know what you're getting into, because that's exactly what it's going to take. If Gaddafi wins in Libya, that will also shut down the mini-revs going on in the other Arab countries.
I read in African news that Qadaffie is getting strong support from people in the Ugandan area and some are consdering going down to support him.

Barrack the feckless strikes again.

This could have turned out well with Qadaffi gone, or Qadaffi still in, but as clueless as Obama showed he was in last nights speech, this is heading towards making any past military cluster-f look like a glaring success.

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/29/ap/africa/main20048247.shtml

A group of several hundred Africans from countries like Kenya, Somalia, and Tanzania held an anti-U.S. rally where they held signs like "Down with America" and "Down with Obama."

Group member Fred Bamwine says that if Western attacks against Libya don't stop, the group will gather Friday and "start marching to Libya to fight against them."

[markabilly]

Being that Obama still hasn't addressed what exactly our intentions are in Libya, this comes as no surpise to me. The supposed peaceful President is walking into what eventually caused Bush to have to put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.
.

The whole purpose of the constitution is to require that the president address these issues and it is Congress that determine whether to declare war.

Already went over all the reasons why these current actions are completely wrong, and why (for better or worse) Bush did follow proper the cnsitutional requirements (despite the fact his predessor, Clinton, totally failed to do so).

What a joke

[Hondo]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/29/ap/africa/main20048247.shtml

A group of several hundred Africans from countries like Kenya, Somalia, and Tanzania held an anti-U.S. rally where they held signs like "Down with America" and "Down with Obama."

Group member Fred Bamwine says that if Western attacks against Libya don't stop, the group will gather Friday and "start marching to Libya to fight against them."

That's why they make cluster munitions. I doubt Col. Qaddafi needs or wants their help.

[Bob Riebe]

That's why they make cluster munitions. I doubt Col. Qaddafi needs or wants their help.Napalm has a far better psychological effect but then it is war and they do not want to kill people in a non-pc manner.

[Mark]

Col. Gaddafi has the rebels on the run again with a flanking ground counter-attack. The rebels, who are not operating with any unity of command or real training cannot stand up to trained forces. I hope all you people hopping up and down for NATO to go in there and take the place are serious and sure you know what you're getting into, because that's exactly what it's going to take. If Gaddafi wins in Libya, that will also shut down the mini-revs going on in the other Arab countries.

They had a group of them on the news last night, and one of the fighters was asked
"Who's in charge here?", "Nobody, we're all in this together"

"Who's the leader overall", "Not sure, I've heard a name.. I'm not sure"

They are also saying on the news this morning that there are quite a few CIA and special forces in there already - to nobodies surprise. I'd imagine they are there to give training on weapons systems and advise on tactics. And of course to find out what the rebels intentions are - it does look like NATO et al have no intention of letting Gadaffi win this.

[BDunnell]

They had a group of them on the news last night, and one of the fighters was asked
"Who's in charge here?", "Nobody, we're all in this together"

"Who's the leader overall", "Not sure, I've heard a name.. I'm not sure"

And therein lies the problem that has always existed with this intervention. It's all very well to ground Gaddafi's air force, but this is an easy task compared to influencing what happens on the ground in such a way as the 'right' end result, in the eyes of the West, is achieved.

[chuck34]

... but then it is war ...

Shhhhh, no it's not, it's a "kinetic military action". I think that's what they are calling it now. It's not a war. Only Bush is allowed to have wars. Get with the program [/SARC]

[chuck34]

And therein lies the problem that has always existed with this intervention. It's all very well to ground Gaddafi's air force, but this is an easy task compared to influencing what happens on the ground in such a way as the 'right' end result, in the eyes of the West, is achieved.

Exactly. If one thing could have been learned in the last 10 year, wether you were for or against Iraq/Afghanistan/Bush/whatever, it's that if you are going to overthrow one regime, you damn well better have a plan B in place and ready to go 100%. Apparently Obama/Bush/Rice and the rest didn't learn anything other than how to bitch about Bush lied, etc.

[BDunnell]

Exactly. If one thing could have been learned in the last 10 year, wether you were for or against Iraq/Afghanistan/Bush/whatever, it's that if you are going to overthrow one regime, you damn well better have a plan B in place and ready to go 100%. Apparently Obama/Bush/Rice and the rest didn't learn anything other than how to bitch about Bush lied, etc.

But I can understand why Libya has been treated differently, in that the expectation a few weeks ago was that Gaddafi was about to be overthrown.

[chuck34]

But I can understand why Libya has been treated differently, in that the expectation a few weeks ago was that Gaddafi was about to be overthrown.

Overthrown by who? Are they are allies? Do their goals match our interests in the region? I sure as heck don't know. The President either a) has no clue either or b) is such a bad communicator that he didn't express that in his speach the other night. "Democracy" is the only thing I hear, but do we know that is what the "rebels" want? Or do they just not want Gaddafi anymore? I would suggest the latter, but again I don't know because it seems that either no one in the government has bothered to ask the question, or hasn't bothered to tell the people they represent.

Also, when is the President going to inform Congress on what he's doing? This is beyond ridiculous at this point. I heard a case being made at one point that he had to act "quickly" (what a joke to think that these actions were quick) and that consulting Congress would have slowed the response down. Ok even if I believed that, what about the last 2 weeks has stopped him from speaking to them?

The time to speak to Congress has long since passed. Especially now that it's escalated to the point where we are finally admitting to having "boots on the ground". Oops I thought we weren't going to do that. How long before we start to hear the chants of "Obama lied, people died"? It'd be much more accurate this time around.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/30/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

[Hondo]

Dear people of the west,

You are about to be had again through the use of lies thinner than the ones used in Iraq. The whole reason for having NATO oversee this foul operation is to cover the sorry a$$es of the political leaders of the countries involved. Obama and the like will be able to plead that they didn't want to get involved in Libya, but as good members of NATO, were forced to provide support by the terms of the NATO treaty agreement. I promise you this: most of the arms provided to the thugs will go out the back door, there is no such thing as a "freelance jihadist", if the people you undertake to train to overthrow Qaddafi are not Libyain in the majority, it's not a revolution. And last of all, this is going to take far,far longer than you are being told. Don't go in and get what you have in, out. Now.

[Bob Riebe]

But I can understand why Libya has been treated differently, in that the expectation a few weeks ago was that Gaddafi was about to be overthrown.Which, at least on this side of the ocean shows how incredibly naive or ignorant the Obama administration is.

[race aficionado]

Which, at least on this side of the ocean shows how incredibly naive or ignorant the Obama administration is.

Speak for yourself.
I'm also on this side of the ocean and I completely disagree with you.

But we knew that already.


:s mokin:

[chuck34]

Speak for yourself.
I'm also on this side of the ocean and I completely disagree with you.

But we knew that already.


:s mokin:

So, to jump in a bit before Bob does ... How are Obama's actions not naive or ignorant? I have yet to see any clear cut statement of purpose for going into Libya coming from our Commander in Chief. I have yet to see the leader of this nation get up before the American people and make a clear statement about why we are getting involved in what is, what started as, and what will always be a civil war. And I have yet to see the political leader of his party get up before the Congress of the United States and describe the conditions for winning this conflict, and how/when we will pull our boys out of there.

Please lay it out there for us. Perhaps you can do it because Mr. Obama sure can't. I honestly would love it if someone would make the case for this. Even if I don't agree with it, I really think someone should try to at least go through the motions.

[Mark]

NDS81Ibazdk

[Mark]

"Oh my god they've found me. I don't know how but they've found me"
"Who?"
"Who to you think, the Libyans!"

[chuck34]

"Oh my god they've found me. I don't know how but they've found me"
"Who?"
"Who to you think, the Libyans!"

So it's all Marty McFly's fault? Or maybe Doc Brown? I never did like that Doc Brown, just look at his hair, how could he be a "good guy"? :D

[Mark]

http://twitpic.com/4fei3w/full

[Bob Riebe]

So, to jump in a bit before Bob does ... How are Obama's actions not naive or ignorant? I have yet to see any clear cut statement of purpose for going into Libya coming from our Commander in Chief. I have yet to see the leader of this nation get up before the American people and make a clear statement about why we are getting involved in what is, what started as, and what will always be a civil war. And I have yet to see the political leader of his party get up before the Congress of the United States and describe the conditions for winning this conflict, and how/when we will pull our boys out of there.

Please lay it out there for us. Perhaps you can do it because Mr. Obama sure can't. I honestly would love it if someone would make the case for this. Even if I don't agree with it, I really think someone should try to at least go through the motions.

Ja-ja, what Chuck said.

[BDunnell]

I have yet to see any clear cut statement of purpose for going into Libya coming from our Commander in Chief.

On this, I agree — as I may have intimated before. The same could be said of any of the Western leaders who have taken their countries into the action. We come back again to the point I made earlier. Quite clearly, everybody expected Gaddafi to be overthrown and for military action to be unnecessary. I certainly expected this to be the case, and in this instance I don't consider this to have been a naive view.

[chuck34]

On this, I agree — as I may have intimated before. The same could be said of any of the Western leaders who have taken their countries into the action. We come back again to the point I made earlier. Quite clearly, everybody expected Gaddafi to be overthrown and for military action to be unnecessary. I certainly expected this to be the case, and in this instance I don't consider this to have been a naive view.

I heard an interesting interview yesterday with a lady (sorry forget her name, I'm horrible with names) but she was an adviser for Kissinger, Reagan, and Bush I. She had been involved in the analysis of Middle East issues, particularly the Lybian situation under Reagan. Basically she was saying the exact opposite. That for anyone to expect Gaddafi to just walk away, ment that they had no clue about the man and his personality. He thinks himself to be beloved by his people, some great unifying figure, some sort of "second coming" type. I'll take her word for it, she's seen the intelligence, read the reports, studied the man. I would have hoped that Obama would have seen simmilar intelligence, but maybe not.

[BDunnell]

I heard an interesting interview yesterday with a lady (sorry forget her name, I'm horrible with names) but she was an adviser for Kissinger, Reagan, and Bush I. She had been involved in the analysis of Middle East issues, particularly the Lybian situation under Reagan. Basically she was saying the exact opposite. That for anyone to expect Gaddafi to just walk away, ment that they had no clue about the man and his personality. He thinks himself to be beloved by his people, some great unifying figure, some sort of "second coming" type. I'll take her word for it, she's seen the intelligence, read the reports, studied the man. I would have hoped that Obama would have seen simmilar intelligence, but maybe not.

There has been a bit of that in the UK too. Listening to it, it sounded very much like people being wise after the event, though this may be unfair. What I'm getting at, though, is perhaps slightly different — that this view of Gaddafi's character is absolutely accurate, without question, but that the tide of revolution would have swept through Libya to such an extent as to be unstoppable. What appears to have happened instead is that it got so far and then stopped — crucially, before the point at which a sufficient mass of the personnel in the Libyan armed forces went over to the rebel side.

[chuck34]

There has been a bit of that in the UK too. Listening to it, it sounded very much like people being wise after the event, though this may be unfair. What I'm getting at, though, is perhaps slightly different — that this view of Gaddafi's character is absolutely accurate, without question, but that the tide of revolution would have swept through Libya to such an extent as to be unstoppable. What appears to have happened instead is that it got so far and then stopped — crucially, before the point at which a sufficient mass of the personnel in the Libyan armed forces went over to the rebel side.

I somewhat agree with you about sounding wise after the event, hard to say if those people had those opinions before this and just didn't have an outlet to express them. In the case of the lady I heard, I believe she truly had the opinion that Gaddafi wasn't going anywhere since at least the 80's

... except if there was such a tide sweeping the revolution on to victory, why did we need a no fly zone?

[BDunnell]

I somewhat agree with you about sounding wise after the event, hard to say if those people had those opinions before this and just didn't have an outlet to express them. In the case of the lady I heard, I believe she truly had the opinion that Gaddafi wasn't going anywhere since at least the 80's

I don't doubt it.



... except if there was such a tide sweeping the revolution on to victory, why did we need a no fly zone?

It was only implemented after it became clear that the revolution wasn't being swept on to victory. It had, after all, been discussed (mainly by the British and the French) for weeks.

Incidentally, while my opinions of the wisdom of the military action are uncertain to say the least, I have no criticisms of the way the British government has handled the matter. It isn't a colour of government I support (part of it, I used to, but not since it sold out), but in spite of the apparent lack of a longer-term strategy and the overstretch again being faced by Britain's decimated armed forces, it is clear that the UK has been very active behind the scenes on the diplomatic side, and this, at the moment, is to be welcomed.

[Bob Riebe]

Quite clearly, everybody expected Gaddafi to be overthrown and for military action to be unnecessary. I certainly expected this to be the case, and in this instance I don't consider this to have been a naive view.

There is nothing in history to show that such a belief by anyone is not naive or ignorant.

Bush showed his stupidity by not having a clue what would happen after they went into Iraq, and this trumps that ten-fold.

[Bob Riebe]

There has been a bit of that in the UK too. Listening to it, it sounded very much like people being wise after the event, though this may be unfair. What I'm getting at, though, is perhaps slightly different — that this view of Gaddafi's character is absolutely accurate, without question, but that the tide of revolution would have swept through Libya to such an extent as to be unstoppable. What appears to have happened instead is that it got so far and then stopped — crucially, before the point at which a sufficient mass of the personnel in the Libyan armed forces went over to the rebel side.

And what says, in history, that Qadaffi would not use his military to legally defend his country against rebel forces?

[BDunnell]

There is nothing in history to show that such a belief by anyone is not naive or ignorant.

Bush showed his stupidity by not having a clue what would happen after they went into Iraq, and this trumps that ten-fold.

Is there anyone (a) who hasn't been dead for centuries, or (b) whose existence many would call into question, that you don't consider to be stupid?

[BDunnell]

And what says, in history, that Qadaffi would not use his military to legally defend his country against rebel forces?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your opinion is this. You hate Obama. Obama is attacking Gaddafi. You therefore support Gaddafi. It bears no more credence than that.

[Bob Riebe]

Is there anyone (a) who hasn't been dead for centuries, or (b) whose existence many would call into question, that you don't consider to be stupid?
Of the soldiers killed by Bush's action, the number is higher than need be solely because of his ignorance or arrogance.
You do not find such an action by a gov. leader to be stupid?

In the U.S. such a civil action gets one sued, in the blink of an eye.

[Bob Riebe]

At this point whether Qadaffi stays or goes the U.S. is screwed because Obama is speaking out of both side of his mouth and is showing Qadaffi all he has to do is hold on and he will win.

If he is driven out, he can successfully condemn the U.S. for regime change, a LARGE portion of his population does not dislike him; if he stays, and I do not entirely disbelieve that this is not part of the reason Obama is acting so feckless in this case, he can control his oil supply in a manner to make the U.S. suffer, which Obama can use in his hate campaign against the oil industry.
If Obama wanted him out, it could and should have been done, peacefully a long time ago; therefore to that degree as compared to Obama's two-faced rhetoric, one has a hard time finding reason to fault Qadaffi for any actions he is taking.
It is his country, and he as legal leader has every right to defend it as such.
Tell me why he does not.

[BDunnell]

At this point whether Qadaffi stays or goes the U.S. is screwed because Obama is speaking out of both side of his mouth and is showing Qadaffi all he has to do is hold on and he will win.

If he is driven out, he can successfully condemn the U.S. for regime change, a LARGE portion of his population does not dislike him; if he stays, and I do not entirely disbelieve that this is not part of the reason Obama is acting so feckless in this case, he can control his oil supply in a manner to make the U.S. suffer, which Obama can use in his hate campaign against the oil industry.
If Obama wanted him out, it could and should have been done, peacefully a long time ago; therefore to that degree as compared to Obama's two-faced rhetoric, one has a hard time finding reason to fault Qadaffi for any actions he is taking.
It is his country, and he as legal leader has every right to defend it as such.
Tell me why he does not.

Other countries are involved too, you know. But don't let that spoil your reverie.

[ioan]

I strongly believe that Europe and the US should not have taken an active part in what is happening in Libya as long as there is no clear picture about who is behind this whole rebel movement.

I bet Sarkozy (as he is the one who started this involvement) will not take responsibility if it turns out that the rebels are supported by Islamic extremists and Libya becomes a terrorists heaven or even only an Islamic republic like Iran. :\

[BDunnell]

I strongly believe that Europe and the US should not have taken an active part in what is happening in Libya as long as there is no clear picture about who is behind this whole rebel movement.

I bet Sarkozy (as he is the one who started this involvement) will not take responsibility if it turns out that the rebels are supported by Islamic extremists and Libya becomes a terrorists heaven or even only an Islamic republic like Iran. :\

A big 'if'. So far, barely any evidence, if any, has been put forward to suggest that al-Qaeda is instrumental in any of what has gone on in Libya.

[ioan]

A big 'if'. So far, barely any evidence, if any, has been put forward to suggest that al-Qaeda is instrumental in any of what has gone on in Libya.

Well that's why it is only an if. And on top of it I didn't mention Al-Qaeda, did I? ;)

[Bob Riebe]

Other countries are involved too, you know. But don't let that spoil your reverie.

France and the UK have very sophisticated air forces, they could have done what is being done without the U.S.
Now the U.S. gets screwed.

[ioan]

France and the UK have very sophisticated air forces, they could have done what is being done without the U.S.
Now the U.S. gets screwed.

Well, who's fault is it?!

[BDunnell]

France and the UK have very sophisticated air forces, they could have done what is being done without the U.S.

In fact, the UK contribution has (probably rightly) been criticised from certain quarters on the grounds of its limitations, so this rather goes against your theory.

[Bob Riebe]

Well, who's fault is it?!

That is actually a very good question.

[Bob Riebe]

In fact, the UK contribution has (probably rightly) been criticised from certain quarters on the grounds of its limitations, so this rather goes against your theory.
I am not gong to argue that the UK has possibly crapped all over itself as far as defense spending, but in the first Iraq war there were none better.
A lesson I thought they had learned from the Falklands war.

[BDunnell]

I am not gong to argue that the UK has possibly crapped all over itself as far as defense spending, but in the first Iraq war there were none better.
A lesson I thought they had learned from the Falklands war.

No-one is doubting the capabilities of the personnel. But some of the equipment is less than optimum. For example, in the Eurofighter Typhoon we have a supposedly multi-role aircraft that is only able to perform the air defence mission.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Before this mess in Libya is dealt with, a lot more people are going to wish this bad idea had just stayed an idea.

No one knows what will happen if they ditch Gaddafi, and while it is in theory a great guy to take him out, no one will admit that to being the goal. It also is a joke, when the poor Syrians are being every bit as put upon or worse by a vicious regime, and no one is doing squat to stop it. Hillary Clinton called Assad a "reformer" which I am sure is news to anyone who had been in his torture chambers, or the good folk with Hezbollah and Hamas who he funds.

If Cameron and Sarkozy wanted to liberate an Arab nation from tyranny, Syria would be a beneficial place to start over Libya. Gaddafi is a pain, but he was keeping to himself....

[markabilly]

The strike killed 13 rebels and wounded seven,

Another rebel spokesman, Mustafa Gheriani, told Reuters the leadership still wanted and needed allied air strikes. "You have to look at the big picture. Mistakes will happen.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110402/wl_nm/us_libya

Killing rebels to save Libyans from Libyans from killing Libyans

Oh yeah, mistakes will happen

but who counts dead bodies among friends, anyway

[markabilly]

New replacement for the Colonel......

Hello, Lockerbie, ggod to see you again....

Talk about principles behind our actions in Libya:

US unfreezes assets of "mass murder suspect"



But as the longtime Libyan intelligence chief and foreign minister, Mr. Koussa is widely believed to be implicated in acts of terrorism and murder over the last three decades, including the assassination of dissidents, the training of international terrorists and the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

“He was both the left arm and the right arm of the regime, its bloodhound,”
said Dirk Vandewalle, a Dartmouth professor who has studied Libya for many years.

Mr. Vandewalle recalled a dinner with friends in Libya a few years ago when one man mentioned Mr. Koussa’s name, a dangerous faux pas. “The conversation just stopped,” he said. “People switched to a different topic. Koussa was considered beyond the pale.”



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42429139/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

:rolleyes:

Stupid me, I thought all you guys were wanting to go over to Libya to wipe out these bad boys of the Colonel.

Here is your chance, you do not need to go there,

just march on down

to london town

[Roamy]

drop the daisy cutters on the whole freaking nation !!!!

[Mark]

It looks like it's all over in Libya. Most of Tripoli has been captured and Gadaffi's son has been arrested.

[BDunnell]

It looks like it's all over in Libya. Most of Tripoli has been captured and Gadaffi's son has been arrested.

And one can still make that last-minute hotel booking in Tripoli for when the conflict ends. I imagine rooms are available at reasonable rates.

Rixos Al Nasr Tripoli is now open (http://www.rixos.com/rixosalnasr.aspx)

[Rudy Tamasz]

I still wonder if the Lybian opposition has any valid democratic credentials. What was the point of helping them if they don't? Replace a dinosaur tyrant with a bunch of petty ones?

[555-04Q2]

Opposition? Its just a random bunch of rebels. Watch how the country goes to war with itself once the big boss is exiled/killed etc. Tribal chiefs will war for control of the land, oil, army etc.

Wonder if the West will actually get enough oil in their hands to re-pay the war efforts?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Wonder if the West will actually get enough oil in their hands to re-pay the war efforts?

We'll see. If we look at it from the realpolitik standpoint Euros made fools of themselves yet again. They had decent relations with Gaddafi anyway annd won nothing from the collapse of his regime. Yanks might have benefited from it. They made Arabs fight with each other instead of blowing up and hijacking Western planes. But in this case they'd be better off by fueling an endless civil war instead of quickly toppling the colonel.

I suspect that nobody has full control, though. Looks like the events are unfolding by themselves.

[Roamy]

i imagine quad man is sitting in the margarita islands with a few billion. wonder if he will shave his head in support of hugo

[Bob Riebe]

We will have to wait and see if Libya becomes another Somalia, only with sweet crude oil.

Once can only hope it does not become another Egypt, which is a pot ready to boil over.

Meahwhile Syria actually is doing to its citizens what Citizen Obama said Qadaffi would do Iran heads towards nuclear terror bosses, and the Libs in country still babble about Arab spring.

[Bob Riebe]

We may not have to wait too long.

Islamic militants among prisoners freed from Libyan jail - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/26/libya.militants.analysis/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)

[Malbec]

We'll see. If we look at it from the realpolitik standpoint Euros made fools of themselves yet again. They had decent relations with Gaddafi anyway annd won nothing from the collapse of his regime. Yanks might have benefited from it. They made Arabs fight with each other instead of blowing up and hijacking Western planes. But in this case they'd be better off by fueling an endless civil war instead of quickly toppling the colonel.

Actually Europe, in particular France and the UK have extremely close ties with the rebels who have expressed a strong desire to give preferential treatment for future oil/gas deals with those who helped them, specifically mentioning Russia and China as countries they'd prefer not to do business with.

Gaddafi played with Europe, demanding a lot but not offering too much in return. Look at the deal over the Lockerbie bomber or his deal with Italy which involved a multi-billion dollar reparations deal.


I suspect that nobody has full control, though. Looks like the events are unfolding by themselves.

Probably. I think the rebels are well coordinated militarily but not politically, especially with the leadership based in Benghazi not really responsible for the victory in the west.

[BDunnell]

Gaddafi played with Europe, demanding a lot but not offering too much in return. Look at the deal over the Lockerbie bomber or his deal with Italy which involved a multi-billion dollar reparations deal.

Or constant talk of major arms deals with the French and Italians (and, for that matter, the Russians) that came to absolutely nothing.

[Dave B]

Well that's that sorted then. Just as we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan like when Saddam Hussain or Osama Bin Laden were killed, Libya can no go back to being peaceful.

Oh... :\

[Bolton Midnight]

Some reports say he's snuffed it, bet his chum Tony Blair is devastated

[Rudy Tamasz]

Most likely the colonel got what he deserved. I wish, though, he just quit without bloodshed in exchange for personal immunity. Now it'll be impossible to convince any tyrant to go peacefully.

[Roamy]

i imagine quad man is sitting in the margarita islands with a few billion. wonder if he will shave his head in support of hugo

I guess he was tooooooooo Fu______king dumb just like Saddam - Christ EKI could be in mourning for a long time.

[driveace]

Too thick to put his hands up and say sorry !!And they finish up in a sewer like Saddam!These guys eventually get what they deserve,a pity it takes so long to happen !!