U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya
Published March 17, 2011 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
The Obama administration is pushing hard for a Thursday vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing airstrikes and other measures to stop Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi from killing more civilians and defeating rebel forces in Libya.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya "requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."
Clinton told reporters in Tunisia the specifics of international action against Qaddafi were still being negotiated at the United Nations in New York.
The move comes as Qaddafi forces have made "significant strides" against the rebels in Libya. Qaddafi forces said it would cease military operations on Sunday to give rebels a chance to surrender, without giving further details about the offer, Reuters reported, citing Al Arabiya TV.
The U.S. wants the Security Council to approve planes, troops or ships to stop attacks by Qaddafi on the rebels, according to a diplomat familiar with closed-door negotiations.
The Obama administration said it would not act without Security Council authorization, though it would be willing to cooperate on measures "short of boots on the ground." However, the diplomat said the U.S. insists on broad international participation, especially by Arab states.
Russia and China have expressed doubts about the U.N. and other outside powers getting involved and either one could veto a resolution.
That possibility spurred concerns by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who in particularly blunt terms questioned Undersecretary of State Williams Burns at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday about whether the U.S. would have the wherewithal to take action absent approval from other nations. During the tense exchange, Rubio said Russia and China aren't interested in trying to end the violence in Libya, and asked if the U.S. doesn't step in, who would.
Burns responded that he is confident the U.N. Security Council will pass a resolution.
"I'm not assuming that it's going to fail," he said. "I think we can produce a resolution. I hope we can today."
The undersecretary noted that forces loyal to Qaddafi are roughly 100 miles from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Burns said Qaddafi is taking full advantage of his military firepower in turning back rebels in Libya.
Libyan rebels shot down at least two bomber planes that attacked the airport in their main stronghold on Thursday, according to residents who witnessed the rare success in the struggle against Qaddafi's superior air power.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, who has been pushing the Obama administration to impose a no-fly zone for weeks, questioned Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz at the committee hearing on why that move would now be too little too late.
Schwartz did not say that the U.S. military should have implemented a no-fly zone but he did agree that if one were to be imposed now it would require additional military action.
"A no-fly zone would not be sufficient," Schwartz said.
"As opposed to a few weeks ago when it would have been," McCain replied.
I sort of figured this would happen, the international community hems and haws and by the time they decide to do something its too late.
Its too bad, would have been a good chance to blow off a few billion USD and give the war hawk senators a chance to feel like bigshots while they head bang to the team america theme song.
But Qhaddafi should be bombed into oblivion for 30+ years of acts of terrorism. Regardless of how he has behaved in the last 3-4 years.
As much of our bombing relies on ground-level intelligence, I have a feeling that we already have assets in place and are just waiting for some political smoke to give us cover.
I guess Fox has their take on it but Secretary Clinton was on NPR this morning and stated very plainly that the U.S. will not make a single move without international concensus but she doesn't see it happening as too many countries are opposed to the idea of a no-fly zone.
agnosto wrote:I guess Fox has their take on it but Secretary Clinton was on NPR this morning and stated very plainly that the U.S. will not make a single move without international concensus but she doesn't see it happening as too many countries are opposed to the idea of a no-fly zone.
She's also announced she's bailing after 2012 no matter what...
Frazzled wrote:
She's also announced she's bailing after 2012 no matter what...
So? Can't really blame her. It seems out foreign policy has been even more muddled than is usual when Dems have control. That doesn't detract from the fact that there will not be any unilateral action this time around....you know, not like invading Iraq on a whim. Keep in mind that I'm not a Dem or a Republican; I think they're both equally full of BS. I watch Fox and CNN and MSNBC and synthesize the same story from each and believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.
Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with us. It will just get our guys killed.
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.
Don't feel like getting drawn into a debate, but I hardly think that Gaddafis anti air equipment is capable of causing us losses. He's more poorly equipped then Sadaam was and we didn't lose anyone in those air campaigns (while our capabilities have since improved).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
She's also announced she's bailing after 2012 no matter what...
So? Can't really blame her. It seems out foreign policy has been even more muddled than is usual when Dems have control. That doesn't detract from the fact that there will not be any unilateral action this time around....you know, not like invading Iraq on a whim. Keep in mind that I'm not a Dem or a Republican; I think they're both equally full of BS. I watch Fox and CNN and MSNBC and synthesize the same story from each and believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Do that and you end up with half a correct story fethed up almost entirely by fox.
Well a no fly zone placed over hostile territory intrinsically involves bombing their anti air capability. No fly zones are expressions of air dominance which has to be achieved first.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Do that and you end up with half a correct story fethed up almost entirely by fox.
Meh. I operate under the assumption that all opinions are equally valid. The problem I have with Fox is how often they mix opinion with "facts" seemingly more often than the other news organizations. They all have an agenda and once you realize that, you can look beyond the agenda, usually.
We had a no-fly zone after the first Iraq war to protect the Kurds in the North from Saddam; very occasionally, Saddam's forces would "paint" one of our planes and we'd bomb them.
Meh. I operate under the assumption that all opinions are equally valid. The problem I have with Fox is how often they mix opinion with "facts" seemingly more often than the other news organizations. They all have an agenda and once you realize that, you can look beyond the agenda, usually.
Why would you utilize a yellow news organization when your plan is to look past agendas? It just seems counter intuitive.
Well a no fly zone placed over hostile territory intrinsically involves bombing their anti air capability. No fly zones are expressions of air dominance which has to be achieved first.
So you''re ok with bombing Libya. I'll remember that the next time you whine about kids getting killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
ShumaGorath wrote:Why would you utilize a yellow news organization when your plan is to look past agendas? It just seems counter intuitive.
We're straying a bit off topic here but obviously one person's "yellow news organization" is another person's font of facts. To dispute any inaccuracies you have to at least know what they're saying incorrectly. That goes for all of the organizations because CNN and the other "sources" are not exactly bastions of purity.
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?
Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?
No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.
You may recall the GW tried to get UN sanction for Iraq but when he failed, he went ahead and invaded anyway.
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?
Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?
No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'
agnosto wrote:You may recall the GW tried to get UN sanction for Iraq but when he failed, he went ahead and invaded anyway.
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?
Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?
No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.
You may recall the GW tried to get UN sanction for Iraq but when he failed, he went ahead and invaded anyway.
Bull gak. The UN is utterly irrelevant and has no legal impramitur on whether a declaration of war is needed. This isn't the world government air force, its the Mutha ing Snakes on a plane United States military forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I would have though Frazzled would be up for any excuse to bomb things.
You're confused, its any excuse to get bombed, not bomb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The rebels lost. They're done. There's no point now.
Funny, the military actions currently going on in Libya don't seem like they're symptomatic of a conflict that is over.
Could it be that, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about?
I'm osrry oh all knowuing guru, but what areas do the rebels still control? Last I saw G's forces had their last strong surrounded and had given them a surrender or be destroyed ultimatum.
Well a no fly zone placed over hostile territory intrinsically involves bombing their anti air capability. No fly zones are expressions of air dominance which has to be achieved first.
So you''re ok with bombing Libya. I'll remember that the next time you whine about kids getting killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
When did that happen last time? I'm pretty sure my usual response is "this is the harsh reality of war, get the feth used to it and INSULTING GENERALIZATIONS ARE VIOLATIONS OF DAKKA RULES".
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'.
Guess what. The Unites States has already given tacit approval to involve armed forces in whatever manner the UN Security Council deems best. I recommend you read the charter. The U.S. Congress, as a signee of this document has already agreed to allow the UN to dictate certain actions.
Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
It didn't take a congressional approval stamp for the US to send troops into Bosnia; no declaration of war for that or for the no-fly zone in Iraq (before GW's war) or countless other "hotbeds" that US troops have visited without some "We're at WAR!" declaration....I don't believe we ever declared
Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress
In many instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.
Korean War
Multinational Force in Lebanon
Gulf War
Bosnian War
also known as UNPROFOR
Serbia
2001 war in Afghanistan
Second Liberian Civil War Peacekeeping
Haiti, also known as MINUSTAH
biccat wrote:
The U.S. isn't governed by the United Nations, they have no ability to circumvent U.S. law on the subject.
Again, read the charter. Yes, we are and yes, they do in that they won't ask things that break US law and police actions are allowed (see your own comment about Vietnam which was actually approved by congress without a formal declaration).
Ahh yes, the "the rebels will stop if we take down the monolith" thing. Glad that was proven true in afghanistan, Iraq, half of the countries in asia, and essentially every country in south america. Yep. The revolution stops because they took two towns.
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'.
Guess what. The Unites States has already given tacit approval to involve armed forces in whatever manner the UN Security Council deems best. I recommend you read the charter. The U.S. Congress, as a signee of this document has already agreed to allow the UN to dictate certain actions.
A treaty cannot subvert the Constitutional authority of the President or Congress. The UN charter is no more than a treaty.
Further, the treaty only authorizes the Security Council to declare war, it doesn't allow the Security Council to force it's member nations to declare war.
agnosto wrote:It didn't take a congressional approval stamp for the US to send troops into Bosnia; no declaration of war for that or for the no-fly zone in Iraq (before GW's war) or countless other "hotbeds" that US troops have visited without some "We're at WAR!" declaration....I don't believe we ever declared
You're right on Bosnia, but that was authorized under the War Powers act, which gives the president a 60 day window. The extra 2 weeks or so was not legal, and it's pretty well recognized as such.
The no-fly zone was arguably an extension of the authority of the first Gulf War, as it was enforcing a cease fire.
The list of US military actions you cite are actually pretty nefarious among Constitutional scholars. Fortunately (?) for Congress and the President, it appears that the courts aren't willing to accept cases challenging or defining the limits of the War Powers clause.
agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:
The U.S. isn't governed by the United Nations, they have no ability to circumvent U.S. law on the subject.
Again, read the charter. Yes, we are and yes, they do in that they won't ask things that break US law and police actions are allowed (see your own comment about Vietnam which was actually approved by congress without a formal declaration).
Like I said before, a treaty cannot overcome the U.S. Constitution.
I had to check, but I mentioned Korea. Truman never went to Congress for a declaration of war.
Vietnam was authorized under the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Ahh yes, the "the rebels will stop if we take down the monolith" thing. Glad that was proven true in afghanistan, Iraq, half of the countries in asia, and essentially every country in south america. Yep. The revolution stops because they took two towns.
I thought we just had to kill enough of them and they would phase out
So I was wrong in a couple of places and you weren't entire correct in others. My point was/is that the War Powers Act hasn't been a hindrance to U.S. participation in UN operations and I don't see it ever becoming one because the public relations nightmare that would swiftly follow if we ever said we wouldn't participate.....we created the thing after all and if we stop supporting it, we'd be a bunch of hypocrits....not that that'll stop us. Congress has to invoke it to begin with and they can't even agree to pay for toilet paper right now.
Frazzled wrote:"They will not follow you if you are dead." -Shadows to Sheridan.
Dude got old ones to follow him when dead and the shadows protected their main and only home city with a thin dome of glass. Dudes got a lot of things wrong.
Frazzled wrote:"They will not follow you if you are dead."
-Shadows to Sheridan.
Dude got old ones to follow him when dead and the shadows protected their main and only home city with a thin dome of glass. Dudes got a lot of things wrong.
My assumptions are based on what I have been following on the news since the Egyptian episode. It seemed like the perfect revolution according to the news, the people had a plan, leadership, and a loud but peaceful voice. It seems that their neighboring countries got the idea of trying the same thing in other Arab countries, but without a plan, without leadership, and with no coherent goal that I could make out in the first days of this thing other than the men interviewed on the news shouting proudly of their desire to die for the revolution if necessary. There is no particular person to bring to the table and negotiate, just "the rebels" whoever they may be. This makes any country that wants to look like it respects the rules and the sovreignty of states kind of shy about trying to mediate. Cap it off that el Generalissimo is obviously a narcisistic power paranoid nutjob as he showed with his proud proclaimation that his people love him and all want to die for him. Um, yeah... negotiations? hrm. The whole death wish concept is glorified in the minds of the rebels and the loyalists evidently and all I could make out was a poorly organized mob mentality versus a narcisistic powermonger. Do we even know what they proposed to do with the government once they won their revolution?
I believe this is why the U.S. and the international community in general, did not want to get involved. Following Egypt, we have seen attempts at rebellion all over the middle east, protesting monarchs, dictators, cubs fans, and other such despicable things but none of them had the overwhelming sense of purpose that Egypt's recent changes have. Egypt's revolution was widely televised because it was Good News! If anything the news networks seem to have taken a neutral to hushed approach with small coverage in general, no personal attachment, and what I interpret as a deliberate lack of any real depth. It's hard to support "the rebels" when we have no idea who they are, what they want to do (other than the obvious kill the king paris mob mentality), or what the people in Libya think of the whole thing. If it were the entire country in rebellion, then el Generalissimo would have been in the same position as what occured in Egypt, with no military wanting to fire on their own people either. Who wants to fire on their own people? Is the entire Libyan military a bunch of brainwashed thugs doing whatever the boss says? I find that hard to believe.
Top off the whole mess with a poorly timed earthquake, tsunami, and current nuclear meltdown fear suddenly distracting everyone to worry about something else, and it's a convenient "out" for world leaders put on the spot to intervene in such an awkward situation. I am afraid this revolution will be pretty much forgotten by everyone except the people of Libya, who will bear the resentment for the lack of support for the rest of their supposedly death-wish-loving lives.
This is all the observation of a guy who just sees what he sees on the news, so don't mock me too much, just saying what I see.
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?
Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?
No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'
That is not exactly factually correct. Here is a very brief article outlining the inherent problems with Congress' power to declare war, and what the President's role is, etc.: http://www.daveross.com/war.html
The President's authority to act unilaterally (without Congress) has been expanded over the past 200 years; and the courts pretty much refuse to touch it.
And, although the War Powers Act is on the books, it has never been litigated to see if it stands up to Constitutional muster. It probably violates the aforementioned Commander-in-Chief powers. So basically we have a Constituitonal mess in this area, with arguments on both sides pretty much dictated by political affiliation and which party is currently in control of which branch of government.
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'
That is not exactly factually correct. Here is a very brief article outlining the inherent problems with Congress' power to declare war, and what the President's role is, etc.:
...
So basically we have a Constituitonal mess in this area, with arguments on both sides pretty much dictated by political affiliation and which party is currently in control of which branch of government.
It sure is factually correct, and there's no Constitutional mess. It's a well balanced political issue:
The President agrees that he'll seek Congressional approval for his actions before or within 60 days of deploying troops, and in exchange, Congress agrees not to impeach him for sending troops overseas without a declaration of war.
On the cases, I hate it when the Court punts on an issue by declaring so-and-so didn't have standing, and then making it a guessing game about who has standing to litigate a case. The worst offenders were the courts in the "birther" lawsuits. There's no reason why those cases couldn't have been decided for a variety of reasons. By refusing to grant standing to any of the plaintiffs, they encouraged more cases.
Just declare the War Powers clause a political question and be done with it.
We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.
Head to your nearest recruitment center, maybe?
Let the sovereign foreign nation handle its own troubles. Or better yet, let the nations that share a border with it, or are a short trip across from the mediterranean from it, handle that business. It will be there refugee problem anyway. Also, isn't Libya a member of the African Union? Where are they and why are they so worthless/powerless?
And of course McCain wants a military intervention, so in the next presidential election he and his compatriots can call the Libya intervention "A war of Obamas choosing" and how it wasted x$ billion of the taxpayers dollars. And if he doesn't go to war/take military action, they have something to point to about him being weak in foreign policy.
Any billions of dollars spent putting gadaffi back in line is better spent with helping our allies and friends, the Japanese, in their time of desperate need. America(so by extension, the majority of NATO) has enough on its plate. Let Europe/Afric police their own neighborhoods.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm osrry oh all knowuing guru, but what areas do the rebels still control? Last I saw G's forces had their last strong surrounded and had given them a surrender or be destroyed ultimatum.
You answered your own question. A force that's surrounded, and possesses a stronghold isn't defeated, and so any conflict involving them cannot be over. Regardless, what you heard is inaccurate, the rebels are not, collectively, surrounded.
Libya's forces Thursday recaptured Misurata, the last major western rebel foothold, and bombed opposition capital Benghazi, Libyan officials said
It both indicates that what was captured was the last rebel foothold in the Western part of Libya, and that there are other areas under rebel control. More importantly, the part of Libya that the rebels control (The Eastern part, where Benghazi is the most important city.) contains the majority of Libya's proven oil reserves.
You plainly didn't even read that before posting it.
Now that the U.N. has passed their course of action, I predict Generalissimo will continue to defend his 'honor' or whatever crap goes on in his head, he just said the UN holds no power there or something to that effect. See how long that lasts. I am guessing the Libyan military is either brainwashed completely blind unaware of what that really means, or, hopefully one of the more sane people will assassinate his ego trip. Problem solved.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
agnosto wrote:I honestly didn't see ratification of the no-fly zone coming; I thought it was a long shot at best.
China and Russia lacked sufficient interest to veto. It was ideological opposition, not opposition from material need.
agnosto wrote:
Too little too late?
It depends on how intent the Libyan military is when it comes to resisting the no-fly zone. If they just drive around under the UN air cover, and make no attempt to resist the action, then they might do alright; after all the instigation of a bombing campaign, while possible, isn't a necessary component of a no-fly zone.
Gaddafi won. Sure he is going to have big internal security problems fro a long time, but he won. There was a time when he might not have won but that time passed.
France tried to help them with official recognition, but got nowhere fast because they didnt do anything. Which may have been wiser. The UK tried also, spreading rumours about Daffy leaving the country which forced him to show his hand, and also tried to establish contact with rebels and got pissed on for it.
meanwhile Aun-O 'Bama did nothing, he dithered and dithered and was the wet lettuce his presidency has marked him to be. Howeverb now twith the rebels gone and his popularity at full ebb (the real issue to him) he wants to appear tough and send in the bombers.
Too little too late, I doubt it will make Obama appear tough now, that time has passed and it certainly wont help the Libyans, with the rebels contained it has turned from a war to a policing/internal security action. Daffy needs secret policemen backed up with APC's now, not bombers and 6th Fleet does little to stop those.
The only way to deal with Daffy now would be an invasion, and as a sizable portion of the military have nailed their colours to Daffy they will fight one way or another, so any invasion would quickly not appear as any form of liberating force.
Bomb Libya, make them all enemies. The new resolution makes no sense and is political posturing for a US president who hasd proven time and again to be a complete incompetent in terms of foreign policy. Sadly it will not be the first time a US president has started a war for his own personal gain, and it ont be the first time we have followed him.
Now the window is shut I really hope Cameron has the smarts not to try and climb through it, the Libyan people had their chance to get our help and declined, its on their own heads now.
Remember That thread I made about Obama, showing signs of weakness for not pushing for it sooner. I knew way before hand the no fly zone was going to happen. I just wanted it to happen you know when it could of mattered. It's not like Obama was gonna lose any votes from people who just oppose him anyways. It's to late now the country is split east and west, and the no fly zone that may have ended this will just turn it into a bloody civil war. Freedoms dead there broham, go close Gitmo or something.
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'
That is not exactly factually correct. Here is a very brief article outlining the inherent problems with Congress' power to declare war, and what the President's role is, etc.:
...
So basically we have a Constituitonal mess in this area, with arguments on both sides pretty much dictated by political affiliation and which party is currently in control of which branch of government.
It sure is factually correct, and there's no Constitutional mess. It's a well balanced political issue:
The President agrees that he'll seek Congressional approval for his actions before or within 60 days of deploying troops, and in exchange, Congress agrees not to impeach him for sending troops overseas without a declaration of war.
On the cases, I hate it when the Court punts on an issue by declaring so-and-so didn't have standing, and then making it a guessing game about who has standing to litigate a case. The worst offenders were the courts in the "birther" lawsuits. There's no reason why those cases couldn't have been decided for a variety of reasons. By refusing to grant standing to any of the plaintiffs, they encouraged more cases.
Just declare the War Powers clause a political question and be done with it.
Not exactly.
The War Powers Act does not require a declaration of war; rather, it only requires authorization by Congress for the Executive to have troops overseas for more than 60 days. No specific Declaration of War is required. So I stand by my earlier premise that what you stated was not exactly factually correct (although I kind of understood what you meant anyhow...)
But the War Powers Act is also pretty much unenforceable. Not much of a law if no one is going to actually follow it, now is it?
By your reckoning Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Kosovo, The First Gulf War, the Iraq invasion and ongoing occupation, Afghanistan, The Cold War and The War on Terror are not "wars," or they are not "legal," or some other such nonsense, because there was no formal Declaration of War promulgated by Congress.
The Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to Declare War... But this phrase does not qualify this as an exclusive power. Nor is a formula in the Constitution for how this Declaration is supposed to look, what the procedure is for how it comes about, nor even is the terminology defined. I understand your position, and it is one that I find difficult to get away from as well. But experience and education have disabused me that a lot of the things I was taught in high school are simply not correct.
Presidents both before and after the War Powers Act have sent troops into conflicts 125 seperate times without prior Congressional approval. Also, every President who has sent troops anywhere since 1973, Republican and Democrat alike, has asserted that they have the Constitutional authority to commit troops without Congressional approval, under Article I, either prior to or after 60 days of an action, regardless of the War Powers Act.
As for the Court, if the SCOTUS did not adhere to a strict interpretation of standing, then it would be doing nothing but resonding to one idiotic claim after another, whether its birthers, income tax challengers, people who do not want to fund the military, etc. All of the lower courts have declared the War Powers Act a political question, and the SCOTUS has denied cert. every time. So basically, that means it is a political question, and not a legal one. As for birthers, private citizens do not have the right to challenge specific actions of the U.S. government, without the governments prior consent; so no standing. I also find it ironic that the conservatives, who go on and on about state's rights, refuse to acknowledge that Hawaii's "certificate of live birth" is somehow not legitimate because it is not a "birth certificate;" and they want some sort of national standard applied ex post facto so that they can nullify a man who was born there from serving as president. Even though the Federal Elections Commision, which is duly authorized and empowered by Congress as the certifying body, has certified him as a "natural born citizen." It is really nothing but closet racism IMHO.
dogma wrote:
You plainly didn't even read that before posting it.
Orlanth wrote:The way I see it is this.
Gaddafi won. Sure he is going to have big internal security problems fro a long time, but he won. There was a time when he might not have won but that time passed.
France tried to help them with official recognition, but got nowhere fast because they didnt do anything. Which may have been wiser. The UK tried also, spreading rumours about Daffy leaving the country which forced him to show his hand, and also tried to establish contact with rebels and got pissed on for it.
meanwhile Aun-O 'Bama did nothing, he dithered and dithered and was the wet lettuce his presidency has marked him to be. Howeverb now twith the rebels gone and his popularity at full ebb (the real issue to him) he wants to appear tough and send in the bombers.
Too little too late, I doubt it will make Obama appear tough now, that time has passed and it certainly wont help the Libyans, with the rebels contained it has turned from a war to a policing/internal security action. Daffy needs secret policemen backed up with APC's now, not bombers and 6th Fleet does little to stop those.
The only way to deal with Daffy now would be an invasion, and as a sizable portion of the military have nailed their colours to Daffy they will fight one way or another, so any invasion would quickly not appear as any form of liberating force.
Bomb Libya, make them all enemies. The new resolution makes no sense and is political posturing for a US president who hasd proven time and again to be a complete incompetent in terms of foreign policy. Sadly it will not be the first time a US president has started a war for his own personal gain, and it ont be the first time we have followed him.
Now the window is shut I really hope Cameron has the smarts not to try and climb through it, the Libyan people had their chance to get our help and declined, its on their own heads now.
This is a far cry from your ussually comprehensive posts, Orlanth. I'm willing to blame it on St. P's day.
The rebel movement has repeatedly asked for a no-fly zone (and certainly wouldn't turn down arms). This is different from an invasion.
Okay, from my SME (Subject Matter Expert) less than humble opinion here is the "Tom Clancy" esque take on this, it's sweeping generalisations but they hold water so don't point out individual case where it doesn't hold true because they are the exception that proves the rule.
1. Libya is a repressed Country, do we care? Not really. The real issue is better the devil you know. Radical Islam and Extremism now has a pretty good foothold across the Horn of Africa, through Sudan, Eqypt and probably now to Libya. Eqypt used to repress the Extremist elements as did Quadaffi to a degree (unless it suited them to fund them and use them as proxy's) now AQ and others will be moving silently into the vacuum across north Africa and this will become more of a headache to Western Governments in the next decade and it opens the vulnerable underbelly of europe to infiltration via scilly and Italy.
2. Yes we want Qaddaffi gone, and the US has tried before. If we are successful and we probably will be, based on the fact that if we aren't Oil prices across europe will fluctuate as Qaddaffi tries to punish the West for trying to get rid of him. Plus the UK will get "flicked the bird" for making diplomatic contact with the rebels trying to support their cause. So in essence the West wants rid of him, but there is a second undercurrent here. What have China and Russia demanded? What is their gain in all this? They have signed off at the UNSCR, this in itself is a very rare thing.
3. China and Resources. Okay so everyone wants a cut of the pie, China have been securing Mineral rights across Africa to prop up their booming economy. China normally plays the smart game, and will not jeopardise its economy for anyone or anything, its Communist only in name these days, its more of a Capitalist Police State. What has caused them to jump on the bandwagon and sign off on the UNSC Resolution? They are hedging their bets, if the rebels win, and with the support of Western Governments they are about 90% certain to, then the Chinese will want contracts for minerals. If China supports Qaddaffi then the Rebels will give them the big "Feth you" and not sign over mineral rights, so it's in China's best interests to do this.
4. The Biggest un-answered Quesiton is what does Russia want? Usually they oppose the US on Principle, I would love to know their thought processes and why they signed off on the UNSCR.
5. Bottomline the US better wake up, (or rather Obama better wake up) because the world is changing and if the US doesn't start displaying some Leadership and deploy the Big stick (read Carrier Battle Groups) then they will be increasingly Marginalised, especially as you consider India and China are racing towards superpower status.
The War Powers Act does not require a declaration of war; rather, it only requires authorization by Congress for the Executive to have troops overseas for more than 60 days. No specific Declaration of War is required. So I stand by my earlier premise that what you stated was not exactly factually correct (although I kind of understood what you meant anyhow...)
Ah, I see where the issue was.
Constitutionally, the power to declare war is held by Congress, not the President. Therefore, before we send troops, there must (theoretically) be a declaration of war.
Congress, through the War Powers Act, ceded some of it's power to the Executive. This grant basically gives the President the authority to make the necessary declaration and inform Congress.
The war powers of the President have always been pretty hotly contested. It depends on who is in the White House and who is in the Congress.
Eldanar wrote:But the War Powers Act is also pretty much unenforceable. Not much of a law if no one is going to actually follow it, now is it?
The Tenure of Office Act also never went before the Supreme Court, but it certainly was a good law as far as Congress was concerned.
The Supreme Court isn't the sole body charged with determining the Constitutionality of an action. They just have the final say.
Eldanar wrote:By your reckoning Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Kosovo, The First Gulf War, the Iraq invasion and ongoing occupation, Afghanistan, The Cold War and The War on Terror are not "wars," or they are not "legal," or some other such nonsense, because there was no formal Declaration of War promulgated by Congress.
Absent the War Powers Act, I would agree, at least mostly. The power "to declare War" doesn't necessarily require a bill titled "Declaration of War," at least, not textually. The War Powers Act eliminates this issue entirely, effectively granting the power to declare war to the President.
Eldanar wrote:The Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to Declare War... But this phrase does not qualify this as an exclusive power.
I think it's pretty clear from the structure of the Constitution that by granting to Congress the War Power, the President does not have such a power. While he is Commander in Chief, the power to declare war is exclusively Congressional (again, absent the War Powers Act).
Eldanar wrote:Nor is a formula in the Constitution for how this Declaration is supposed to look, what the procedure is for how it comes about, nor even is the terminology defined. I understand your position, and it is one that I find difficult to get away from as well. But experience and education have disabused me that a lot of the things I was taught in high school are simply not correct.
Presidents both before and after the War Powers Act have sent troops into conflicts 125 seperate times without prior Congressional approval. Also, every President who has sent troops anywhere since 1973, Republican and Democrat alike, has asserted that they have the Constitutional authority to commit troops without Congressional approval, under Article I, either prior to or after 60 days of an action, regardless of the War Powers Act.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Is it that Congress and the President fight over their respective positions in regards to War Powers? I would agree.
Is it that the Supreme Court hasn't taken a side to declare one right and the other wrong? I agree, and furthermore, I don't think they should.
Eldanar wrote:As for the Court, if the SCOTUS did not adhere to a strict interpretation of standing, then it would be doing nothing but resonding to one idiotic claim after another, whether its birthers, income tax challengers, people who do not want to fund the military, etc.
Political question takes care of the issue even better than standing. I'm not suggesting adding taxpayer standing, because you're right about what would result. Rather, questions like those raised by the birthers and war opponents should be dealt with summarily as based on a political question.
Eldanar wrote:All of the lower courts have declared the War Powers Act a political question, and the SCOTUS has denied cert. every time.
Umm...this isn't exactly true. Even assuming you're referring to the various circuit courts, I don't think all of them have had an opportunity to address the issue. Cite?
Also, Campbell v. Clinton was a standing case, not political question.
Eldanar wrote:As for birthers, private citizens do not have the right to challenge specific actions of the U.S. government, without the governments prior consent; so no standing.
Huh? This isn't even standing, this is Sovereign Immunity. Most of the birther cases were dealt with on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the requisite injury in fact, and generally didn't even address redressability.
Eldanar wrote:I also find it ironic that the conservatives, who go on and on about state's rights, refuse to acknowledge that Hawaii's "certificate of live birth" is somehow not legitimate because it is not a "birth certificate;" and they want some sort of national standard applied ex post facto so that they can nullify a man who was born there from serving as president. Even though the Federal Elections Commision, which is duly authorized and empowered by Congress as the certifying body, has certified him as a "natural born citizen." It is really nothing but closet racism IMHO.
Please don't confuse "conservatives" with "birthers." That's like saying all liberals are truthers.
I'm interested in the birther issue after the decisions that came down based on standing. I think courts use standing as a way to avoid difficult or politically heated questions, and it generally results in poor analysis. I have no doubt that BHO is a "natural born citizen," and is qualified (at least Constitutionally) to be President. However, the standing issue has basically left the Constitutional requirements to be President in legal limbo.
Could someone under 35 be elected President? Under the current precidents, yes, because no one would have standing to challenge the election. The only recourse then is Congressional impeachment (and I don't think it would be an easy sell that failing to qualify by age is a "high crime or misdemeanor").
Watch this space, the West cannot standby as this mental nonce Feths up the oil production and supply chain, especially with Oil at such a high price. The UK definitely cannot afford it, as we basically tried to help the rebels. The UK will go all out on a diplomatic effort. The US will avoid this (or more correctly Barrack Obama hasn't got the stones for it).
Remember when people are desperate, they become irrational so Lord knows what will happen next, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kicks off again shortly.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
And then we end up with more complaints that the NATO countries just see themselves as 'the world's police' doing whatever they damned well feel like in spite of the UN's measured response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mwnciboo wrote:Watch this space, the West cannot standby as this mental nonce Feths up the oil production and supply chain, especially with Oil at such a high price. The UK definitely cannot afford it, as we basically tried to help the rebels. The UK will go all out on a diplomatic effort. The US will avoid this (or more correctly Barrack Obama hasn't got the stones for it).
Remember when people are desperate, they become irrational so Lord knows what will happen next, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kicks off again shortly.
Yes. Because it's all about oil. Never mind the people involved or the humanitarian violations.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
And then we end up with more complaints that the NATO countries just see themselves as 'the world's police' doing whatever they damned well feel like in spite of the UN's measured response.
Sure would. But now the US is getting criticised for not doing anything. When things like this happens and the US doesn't intervene they get criticised and when they do intervene they also get criticised. It's very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. Even though I'm Canadian it pisses me off.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yes. Because it's all about oil. Never mind the people involved or the humanitarian violations.
Kanluwen I don't want to fall out with you, i just want to point out a massive flaw in your argument. Consider that there are many regimes as bad or worse than the Libya, this Conflict is not about Humanitarian violations, it is about regional security and stability. If we taking Humanitarian stances then we should arguably intervened in Sudan, or Yemen or Bahrain, or Cambodia or Rwanda...
I do not point out the relevance of Oil as some fany boy conspiracy theorist. There is a fundamental fact that you must reconcile with yourself that you, yes you and me and everyone else, whether we want to admit it or not are voracious consumers of Oil and all of its derivative products. If you wish to cossett this up as Humanitarian intervention well thats your choice, but doing so does not change this fundamental fact.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
And then we end up with more complaints that the NATO countries just see themselves as 'the world's police' doing whatever they damned well feel like in spite of the UN's measured response.
Sure would. But now the US is getting criticised for not doing anything. When things like this happens and the US doesn't intervene they get criticised and when they do intervene they also get criticised. It's very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. Even though I'm Canadian it pisses me off.
It sounds like you're part of that problem though given that you're criticizing rather then providing a measured or even response that takes into account the why's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mwnciboo wrote:
Kanluwen wrote: Yes. Because it's all about oil. Never mind the people involved or the humanitarian violations.
Kanluwen I don't want to fall out with you, i just want to point out a massive flaw in your argument. Consider that there are many regimes as bad or worse than the Libya, this Conflict is not about Humanitarian violations, it is about regional security and stability. If we taking Humanitarian stances then we should arguably intervened in Sudan, or Yemen or Bahrain, or Cambodia or Rwanda...
I do not point out the relevance of Oil as some fany boy conspiracy theorist. There is a fundamental fact that you must reconcile with yourself that you, yes you and me and everyone else, whether we want to admit it or not are voracious consumers of Oil and all of its derivative products. If you wish to cossett this up as Humanitarian intervention well thats your choice, but doing so does not change this fundamental fact.
It's true. We wouldn't much care about libya if it wasn't sitting on a good supply and didn't effect market prices heavily while threatening to spill over into neighboring nations further destabilizing energy prices. U.S. policy isn't to intervene in every conflict initiated by revolutions against dictators, we would be involved in a dozen countries militarily as we speak if that were the case. There needs to be further impetus, and the cost of oil as well as the proximity to other conflicts we are involved is that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
And then we end up with more complaints that the NATO countries just see themselves as 'the world's police' doing whatever they damned well feel like in spite of the UN's measured response.
Sure would. But now the US is getting criticised for not doing anything. When things like this happens and the US doesn't intervene they get criticised and when they do intervene they also get criticised. It's very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. Even though I'm Canadian it pisses me off.
It sounds like you're part of that problem though given that you're criticizing rather then providing a measured or even response that takes into account the why's.
What would you have me do? If a no-fly zone had been enacted in the early days I wouldn't have criticised them for it. I would have supported such a measure.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
And then we end up with more complaints that the NATO countries just see themselves as 'the world's police' doing whatever they damned well feel like in spite of the UN's measured response.
Sure would. But now the US is getting criticised for not doing anything. When things like this happens and the US doesn't intervene they get criticised and when they do intervene they also get criticised. It's very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. Even though I'm Canadian it pisses me off.
It sounds like you're part of that problem though given that you're criticizing rather then providing a measured or even response that takes into account the why's.
What would you have me do?
Criticize china and russia for their recalcitrance in dealing with dictatorial regimes, appreciate but be wary of the pacifistic and non interventionist stances of many of the less ballsy european states, and not blame America for not wanting to enter into a third mideastern country militarily and applaud them for being the most willing too despite it.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.
Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.
I do. I blame Britian, France The US and even Canada for not just going ahead and doing what they think is needed rather than waiting for UN beauracratic inaction.
And then we end up with more complaints that the NATO countries just see themselves as 'the world's police' doing whatever they damned well feel like in spite of the UN's measured response.
Sure would. But now the US is getting criticised for not doing anything. When things like this happens and the US doesn't intervene they get criticised and when they do intervene they also get criticised. It's very much damned if you do and damned if you don't. Even though I'm Canadian it pisses me off.
It sounds like you're part of that problem though given that you're criticizing rather then providing a measured or even response that takes into account the why's.
What would you have me do?
Criticize china and russia for their recalcitrance in dealing with dictatorial regimes, appreciate but be wary of the pacifistic and non interventionist stances of many of the less ballsy european states, and not blame America for not wanting to enter into a third mideastern country militarily and applaud them for being the most willing too despite it.
So it's more that you just disagree with my stance on the no-fly zone. I think you'll find China and Russia get a lot less criticism for non-interference than the US. The US gets far more criticism for intervention and non-intervention that anyone else was all I was saying.
As for this intervention in particular it was Britian and France who were most willing and able to do something but let the chance slip away.
So it's more that you just disagree with my stance on the no-fly zone.
I've been pro no fly zone from day one.
I think you'll find China and Russia get a lot less criticism for non-interference than the US.
I just told you to criticize them. Thats what I said to do. They get less criticism. Thats wrong. They should get a hell of a lot more, especially since they are both dictatorial regimes.
The US gets far more criticism for intervention and non-intervention that anyone else was all I was saying.
The U.S. also destabilized the mideast and cost somewhere between 350 thousand and a million people their lives by invading Iraq and allowing that to cause Afghanistan to stagnate and return to a taliban state. It gets criticism because it fethed up everything it possibly could in both countries. We had broad support when we invaded afghanistan. Hell, libya was on our side. By now people just think we're incompetent (because the previous administration was).
As for this intervention in particular it was Britian and France who were most willing and able to do something but let the chance slip away.
France also loves to practice Gaulism while preaching it's noble and entirely false ideals. Neither states have the force projection to enforce a no fly zone in the area with effectiveness. We're pretty much it without an EU resolution, which carries with it issues.
Shuma, I actually agree with you on most points. I just think the statement "You're part of the problem" is extremely presumptuous of you when you don't even know my views.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Shuma, I actually agree with you on most points. I just think the statement "You're part of the problem" is extremely presumptuous of you when you don't even know my views.
The problem is how people present their views. Not what the views are.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Shuma, I actually agree with you on most points. I just think the statement "You're part of the problem" is extremely presumptuous of you when you don't even know my views.
The problem is how people present their views. Not what the views are.
I was merely lamenting the fact that the US is often criticised for being the world police and called upon to be it at the same time. Sorry, I'll refrain from showing the US sympathy from now on. Certainly, didn't expect that to be a point of contention.
The U.S. also destabilized the mideast and cost somewhere between 350 thousand and a million people their lives by invading Iraq and allowing that to cause Afghanistan to stagnate and return to a taliban state. It gets criticism because it fethed up everything it possibly could in both countries. We had broad support when we invaded afghanistan. Hell, libya was on our side. By now people just think we're incompetent (because the previous administration was).
So US intervention is bad, but more US intervention is good? Huh? How about we let people figure out their own messes. whoever ends up winning usually appreciates that. Oh wait we did. Good job world!
People think US foreign policy is incompetent because there is a thing called a track record.
A country controlled by a despot, well of course the people will support us as liberators. Where have I heard that before?
..immediate ceasefire, announced 8 minutes ago.
Wait what, how is that possible don't people know they are not allowed to stop fighting until the US starts dropping bombs. I mean really the nerve!
"Arab nations prepared for air strikes against Libyan forces."
Regional powers preparing to execute their own political will in their own spheres of influence. It's shocking, isn't that what the US is for? I thought we pay them for the privilege to enforce their will for them. I call Shenanigans!
Self determination and political will? In that region? Who'd of thunk it?
"The younger Gadhafi said there will be no large-scale assault. Instead police and anti-terrorism units will be sent into the rebel stronghold to disarm the opposition. Unspecified humanitarian groups can help with the exodus of civilians from Benghazi, Saadi Gadhafi said."
Andrew1975 wrote:
So US intervention is bad, but more US intervention is good?
Do you find it impossible to think in terms that aren't absolute?
Seriously, you take a comment about how a set of instances of US intervention is bad, and interpret as though all US intervention is bad. That argument can be made, but that's not what was said.
Andrew1975 wrote:
People think US foreign policy is incompetent because there is a thing called a track record.
People think US foreign policy is incompetent because they themselves are subject to confirmation bias, and lacking in any sort of reasonable perspective.
I always thought there was an easy way to tell a "police action" from a war. If the states loses or has a stalemate, it's a police action, if they win, it's a war. Simple, you don't even need to think about congress or declarations
The real question is what happens now? How does this play out. We have the UN and the Arab league patrolling a no fly zone while a cease fire exists. What are the goals and how do they get accomplished? Is regime change a requirement, if so how does the UN plan to enforce that? Do you just divide Libya forever and have a force constantly monitoring. Who's paying for that?
Oh, it's fun to sit on the sidelines and see how the critics gone to war are gonna handle these situations.
It's not like the US to come late to a conflict is it? hmm...hold on
Well realistically and off the top of my head, no. I presume you are referring to WWII. I think we came just in time and it played out pretty well. After France was gone Britain was pretty safe from invasion and proved that they could defend themselves from the air during the battle of Britain. We sat back and let the Russians do most of the brunt work so that they were too tired to take over the world after they beat the Germans. Simplified and quick version.
European wars should have stayed that way. Maybe if Europe had handled the treaty of Versailles better or stopped German aggression when it was in it's infancy things might have been different. I blame the French. I'm not an Isolationist but I am laissez-faire. I don't really see how that was by necessity a war we needed to be involved in, and maybe you can thank Japan for making it such. The US contribution to WWII really being mostly material though until the war was pretty much decided and the Soviets were pushing the Germans back.
The cost of that war however is that we had to place bases across all of Europe and other places to defend it from the USSR, Most of those bases are still there to the regret of many US taxpayers. In fact it's what kicked off this entire "US saves and polices the world" mentality that everyone hates so much and has gotten us into so many engagements over the last 50 years while many of our allies neglect their own military budgets because well they believed in the "US saves and polices the world" gak that we have been spouting, all the while criticizing (for the most part in my opinion deservedly) the choices we make. But also counting on us to be there if and when the gak hits the fan.
I'll never forget the day some french kid at college used Vietnam as an example of American colonialism at an anti gulf war rally. And they say Americans don't know history.
So....thanks, but we will take a back seat for awhile. Rightfully so.
Oh and if Europe, UN and the Arab league really wasn't waiting for the US to make the first move maybe they should have launched operations 3 weeks ago when it really mattered.
BBC wrote:Pro-Gaddafi tanks are inside Libya's rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a BBC journalist has witnessed, as the city came under attack.
A jet appears to have been shot down over the city in spite of a declared ceasefire and a UN no-fly resolution.
World leaders are due to meet in Paris to discuss military action.
The rebel leader has appealed to the international community to stop the pro-Gaddafi bombardment, but the government denies claims of attacks.
"Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi," Mustafa Abdul Jalil told Al Jazeera television. "There will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the UN Security Council.
"We appeal to the international community, to the all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919 The page I have linked shows the fighter being shot down - it's unclear who it belongs to, though allied forces aren't yet in the area, apparently.
You cannot stop the movement of people or military forces on the ground with an Air Campaign alone. Its easy to move around in Cars with assault weapons and MANPADS and an Aircraft would have no idea what you are doing on the ground, so this will turn into an infantry centric counter insurgency by Qaddafi's forces. The problem will be getting good quality information to the News media so no one will know whats going on and the INTEL coming out of the country will probably only be poor quality or patchy. This has all the hallmarks of a grade A pot mess, which will result in embarassment and problems all round. Best solution an SF strike or precision strike to Kill Qaddafi or this thing will will drag along like a whores draws.
mwnciboo wrote:You cannot stop the movement of people or military forces on the ground with an Air Campaign alone. Its easy to move around in Cars with assault weapons and MANPADS and an Aircraft would have no idea what you are doing on the ground, so this will turn into an infantry centric counter insurgency by Qaddafi's forces. The problem will be getting good quality information to the News media so no one will know whats going on and the INTEL coming out of the country will probably only be poor quality or patchy. This has all the hallmarks of a grade A pot mess, which will result in embarassment and problems all round. Best solution an SF strike or precision strike to Kill Qaddafi or this thing will will drag along like a whores draws.
+1
if you want to defeat your enemy, you have to destroy them, their ability to regroup and you have to decimate their followers to the point that they either have no willingness to fight or they are erased from history. That means getting in on the ground.
Salt the mo'fing earth if you have to.
I'm not sold that Gaddafi and his regime are a legitimate target for any sanctions or military activity though.
Why don't we put more pressure on Thailand or Burma, after all their repression is fantastically well reported and yet we are still happy to mooch over there for under age hookers of all three sexes. (Maybe if Libya had a few transgendered prostitutes we wouldn't be so keen to attack them either).
The BBC has reported that the French air force has destroyed a number of Gaddaffi tanks, the US Navy has fired cruise missiles into the country, and that British planes are flying over the country.
The Italians have offered use of their air bases which already support NATO planes.
Canadian planes have arrived in the area but need two days to prepare for combat.
Kilkrazy wrote:The BBC has reported that the French air force has destroyed a number of Gaddaffi tanks, the US Navy has fired cruise missiles into the country, and that British planes are flying over the country.
The Italians have offered use of their air bases which already support NATO planes.
Canadian planes have arrived in the area but need two days to prepare for combat.
Can't the Italians bloody well supply their own aircraft as well?
I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?
The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lets rename this thread.
Mr. Burning wrote:The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Well, the west has done some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things so I guess that means we'll get some good things, bad things, and neutral things in return. Seems about right, and what usually anyone gets really. Of course, being a westerner you are getting whatever the rest of us gets.
Mr. Burning wrote:The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Well, the west has done some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things so I guess that means we'll get some good things, bad things, and neutral things in return. Seems about right, and what usually anyone gets really. Of course, being a westerner you are getting whatever the rest of us gets.
Ah yes, you are right, of course. I believe that this current action will end up harming those of us in the west. This will not serve as any great benefit to us.
Qaddafi has committed human rights violations, but the scale the west are talking of will end up being so much yellow cake or WMD's (and we already played that joker, badly).
Had to laugh that Mr Cameron et-al had to rescind the scrapping order on 2 Nimrods, the old nimrods for use over there.
This is not going to go well for us, Gaddafi has a better AA than Saddam, after all SH had already lost the majority of his kit in the first gulf war with no resupply. Gaddafi is 'fresh' in this respect.
And why are we enforcing a no fly zone while allowing the opposition to fly? The UN charter, I thought, was about protecting civilians, not enforcing regime change?
So any bets on when we get a UN charter asking the Saudis' to leave Bahrain? Thought not.
Kilkrazy wrote:Gaddaffi is going down, and he deserves to.
110 cruise missiles fired into Libyan bases by USN and RN ships and submarines.
The rebels will be glad for western help. That is the big difference between this and Afghanistan/Iraq.
he may deserve to go down but lets be even handed about who we take down eh?
The Eritreans
The Sauds
The Burmese
Thailand
Pakistan
For not allowing free and fair elections hows about putting a Stormshadow through Bushes window as well.
what other rebels will be glad of western help?
The Kurds in Turkey?
Chechens against the CIS (Russia) or maybe if we class the Chechens terrorists we should bomb the gak out of them too?
The Libyan rebels will not be democratically elected they will have been helped into power by western powers , this is something the Arabs will fight against.
From news reports, civilian targets it appears....
I say again this will not end well, we're supposedly enforcing a no fly zone, why are we destroying tanks, and attacking supply lines? Why are we destroying fuel depots? Why are we destroying transportation methods/routes?
Are we working on third time lucky here? Okay we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we'll get it right in Libya?
If we do this there, then we have to support the Sunnis' in Bahrain, if we don't then we are nothing more than a bunch of bullies in the school playground.
According to the BBC, the only reports of civillian attacks have, surprisingly, come from Libyan State TV. I believe there's a large risk of bias here...
@ Avatar; Agreed but then again they also said that there were no civilian casualties on the 'precision' bombing strikes in Iraq/Afghan, full/final/true figures have never been publicised.
I'm not arguing that this is not morally justified, I'm just fed up of being lied to. If this is regime change say so, not a humanitarian crisis. What are these 'rebels' going to do to 'loyalist' forces if they win? I don't think it will be a group hug.
DO not compare Iraq or Afghanistan with this, it shows a great lack of knowledge of well, anything.
Lets take Iraq, Their country wasn't on the brink of civil war, Their leader wasn't killing civies They were pretty stable, wern't asking for help, and the world was against it. It was a bad war based on lies. You see how this is different? The war in Afghanistan was lost because we spit our forces for the above mentioned war. Well you know what Bush and his mad men are gone. Yeah we screwed up but that doesn't mean we give up. For every Image of an Flag burning, there is a hundred people who were saved from ethic cleansing by America and it's Allies.
We can either cry over past mistakes pick up our ball and sell our army on ebay. Or pick ourselves up, man up and do the right thing.
See I told you they had oil over there. They planned the 911 so they could accuse the "terrorists". But really they wanted the oil!! So soldiers are dying out there so some old geezers could get rich. Now they are allowing the French to profit. Scumbags!!
Guys, it's pretty obvious now that behind the scenes there has been a lot of dickering around the issue that this popular uprising is a good chance to nail Gaddaffi.
We waited for the UN resolution to put the imprimatur of legality on the whole deal.
Warboss Narznok wrote:See I told you they had oil over there. They planned the 911 so they could accuse the "terrorists". But really they wanted the oil!! So soldiers are dying out there so some old geezers could get rich. Now they are allowing the French to profit. Scumbags!!
Never mind, all of you are brainwashed like the other 83% of the people in the US. All wanting to believe the people on the other side of the world are the enemy.
What is the likely hood of 15 year old foreign kids flying giant airplanes into the buildings and making their targets??
Lets say they aren't kids. They were full grown adults. Where did they receive the training to fly these giant airplanes??
Also this would probably be the first time in world history that fire has ever melted steel. It is not physically possible.These buildings are made to withstand hard impacts. It would take barrages upon barrages of planes to bring these building down. These building designers think about this before building it!!
Warboss Narznok wrote:Never mind, all of you are brainwashed like the other 83% of the people in the US. All wanting to believe the people on the other side of the world are the enemy.
What is the likely hood of 15 year old foreign kids flying giant airplanes into the buildings and making their targets??
Lets say they aren't kids. They were full grown adults. Where did they receive the training to fly these giant airplanes??
Also this would probably be the first time in world history that fire has ever melted steel. It is not physically possible.These buildings are made to withstand hard impacts. It would take barrages upon barrages of planes to bring these building down. These building designers think about this before building it!!
... ...Exactly how did we make the jump from military actions in Libya to 911 conspiracies??
sexiest_hero wrote:DO not compare Iraq or Afghanistan with this, it shows a great lack of knowledge of well, anything.
Lets take Iraq, Their country wasn't on the brink of civil war, Their leader wasn't killing civies
Good news for the Kurds then. They weren't fighting for independence and Saddam didn't use the WMDs sold to him by the Americans against them.
They were pretty stable, wern't asking for help
Neither are the Sunnis in Bahrain. oh wait....
and the world was against it
Means nothing. There are other regimes out there with worse track records.
It was a bad war based on lies.
And this isn't?
You see how this is different? The war in Afghanistan was lost because we spit our forces for the above mentioned war. Well you know what Bush and his mad men are gone. Yeah we screwed up but that doesn't mean we give up. For every Image of an Flag burning, there is a hundred people who were saved from ethic cleansing by America and it's Allies.
How to answer this? No this is not any different from any of the other wars. Afghanistan was never going to be won. The Colonial British tried, failed. Russia tried, failed. America/Britian/Allies tried, failed. Taliban tried, suceeded. The Afghans are so busy fighting each other the only time they stop is to fight whoever is invading them, our version of democracy will not work for them, and we do not have the ruthlesness of the Taliban regime to impose our will, because, at that point, democracy is a dictatorship. Ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with it, it's religeous.
We can either cry over past mistakes pick up our ball and sell our army on ebay.
Did you do the search on ebay for the Ark Royal or the Nimrods?
Or pick ourselves up, man up and do the right thing.
Warboss Narznok wrote:Never mind, all of you are brainwashed like the other 83% of the people in the US. All wanting to believe the people on the other side of the world are the enemy.
Yes. Because Americans consider Libya "The Enemy". Not a country that, while providing oil--is also in the midst of a civil war which was inspired by the populace demanding their dictator to step down.
Clearly, not the case at all!
What is the likelihood of 15 year old foreign kids flying giant airplanes into the buildings and making their targets??
So you're saying it was a teenage conspiracy? Blast! How'd you find out? Damn those WikiLeaks!
Most of the hijackers were in the 18-25 range if I'm remembering right.
Lets say they aren't kids. They were full grown adults. Where did they receive the training to fly these giant airplanes??
Same place anyone else does. Flight school.
As for your question of "and making their targets?": flying a plane on a steady course and aiming for two big honking buildings? It's really not that hard.
Ask any licensed pilot. Flying planes today isn't actually that difficult. It's landing them that's the hard part.
Also this would probably be the first time in world history that fire has ever melted steel. It is not physically possible.
...You do know what 'tempered steel' is, right?
And for that matter: it wasn't just "a fire". We're talking about a fire with a steady supply of air to feed the flames and jet fuel to burn.
The force of the impact shook loose a lot of the protections that the structure would have had for the supports, allowing the fire to work on just the steel structure.
These buildings are made to withstand hard impacts.
No, they're not.
It would take barrages upon barrages of planes to bring these building down.
No, it wouldn't.
These building designers think about this before building it!!
No, they don't. They take into consideration common things like maybe a small passenger craft like a Cessna impacting, but something the size of a 747 is supposed to be at a much higher altitude and the airspace around cities is pretty closed to air traffic of that size.
Simply put: it wouldn't happen, unless it was intentional--and that was unthinkable when the Twin Towers were built.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warboss Narznok wrote:I think I have said enough
Clearly. Do you need your tinfoil hat back? I hear Jesse Ventura needs a sidekick.
Saddam gassed the kurds years before. And yes his arms came from America. Russia was an ally of the US before too. Bin Ladin as well. Things change, belive it or not. Iraq was not unstable or had WMD, at the time of our attack.
Afghanistan was a war to catch and kill Bin Ladin. And was well on it's way till the Iraq war disaster. I know, I was there.
In closing if you can't see how this is different than ANYTHING that happened in Iraq, then there is a lack of recent history, on your part. That is not a slam please look up the lead up to the war and all the crazy things that went on like the "Mission accomplished banner.
The main thing I noticed was that certian nations, as usual endup risking their servicemen and women, military asests and spending vast sums of money in the process.
The vastly wealthy Arabian dictatorships do nothing as far as I can see either militaryily or indeed paying for the war in their back garden.
Other European "allies" and "partners" sit on the sidelines and whine................and again provide little military and even less finincial support.
At the same time we have the UK economy in a dire state and large proposed cuts of our armed forces.
Make those nations wanting our nations to act on their behalf to pay for it.................or let them do something other than sell their oil, oppress their populations and count their money.
AndrewC wrote:Avatar, what is Gadaffi going to target? The rebels are mainly civilians.
Believing something to be a military base does not make it one, mistakes will be made.
Cheers
Andrew
You first question makes no sense considering the context. WE are doing the bombing now, not that loony, and we are not targetting civillians, so...
Did I say believing something was a military base made it one? No. Bombing a suspected military base gives the bombers an excuse for collateral damage; either it was not bomb it, save a few civillians now but possibly have a functional military base there waiting to retalliate (most likely causing more damage and death) or bomb it and possibly deny Gaddafi a base to use against us.
The main thing I noticed was that certian nations, as usual endup risking their servicemen and women, military asests and spending vast sums of money in the process.
The vastly wealthy Arabian dictatorships do nothing as far as I can see either militaryily or indeed paying for the war in their back garden.
Other European "allies" and "partners" sit on the sidelines and whine................and again provide little military and even less finincial support.
At the same time we have the UK economy in a dire state and large proposed cuts of our armed forces.
Make those nations wanting our nations to act on their behalf to pay for it.................or let them do something other than sell their oil, oppress their populations and count their money.
I couldn't agree more. Hey look Italy is allowing us to use air bases I mean even France is pitching in with combat planes, when did the Germans turn into such pansies?
I think that is why the US sat on it's hands for so long. We waited until someone else lead the charge, we are tired of being first in last out in these affairs, all the while (many, not all) of our "Allies" give us the finger and incur little cost and less blame. If this was so important to the UN, it should have been done weeks ago, but you know they figured the US would charge in as usual and they would not have to do anything.
I couldn't agree more. Hey look Italy is allowing us to use air bases I mean even France is pitching in with combat planes, when did the Germans turn into such pansies?
The Germans have been panseis for a long time now, they still have the ww1(even though they didnt start it), ww2 ghosts in their closet. Its nothing new.
sexiest_hero wrote:DO not compare Iraq or Afghanistan with this, it shows a great lack of knowledge of well, anything.
Lets take Iraq, Their country wasn't on the brink of civil war, Their leader wasn't killing civies They were pretty stable, wern't asking for help, and the world was against it. It was a bad war based on lies. You see how this is different? The war in Afghanistan was lost because we spit our forces for the above mentioned war. Well you know what Bush and his mad men are gone. Yeah we screwed up but that doesn't mean we give up. For every Image of an Flag burning, there is a hundred people who were saved from ethic cleansing by America and it's Allies.
We can either cry over past mistakes pick up our ball and sell our army on ebay. Or pick ourselves up, man up and do the right thing.
Just a quick one, great lack of knowledge?, be careful banding a statement like that around. Especially when Saddam Hussein did attack his own people with Chemical weapons, did oppress and murder his own people, oh and had a conflict with the Marsh Arabs, and the kurds within his own country which could be construed as a Civil War if not a Civil Conflict. The Northern Region of Iraqi was Quasi Autonomous for last 10 years of his reign.
Be aware that the context for the 2003 Invasion and "Liberation" was different to this, but nothing in this should be taken in isolation. The Pretext was flimsy, and at that time no country would say no to the US on the Basis of being called "Terrorists or supporters of Terrorists" in the post 911 period. SH was a nasty piece of work and deserved Death, as does Qaddafi.
@Avatar, The pretext of the No-Fly zone is to protect innocent civilians from harm. The rebels are civilians, who else is Gaddafi going to be shooting at? Take away the rifle that they were holding and suddenly we have an 'innocent' bystander. Israel has been targetting civilian areas under the pretext of a suspected 'military' target for years, with no repercussions, yet Gaddafi does it and he's now a pariah and should be removed from power? The confusion lies in your earlier post with the comment about not targetting civilians, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about CG or us. I assumed CG.
@ sexiest_hero, please explain how attacking one side in a civil war is a humanitarian effort? All you've told me is that Afghanistan was an invasion on a country to apprehend one man, who wasn't a citizen, had no official role in the government and wasn't actually resident in any of their cities. A brilliant reason for the invasion! And while you may have went through hell doing so, it does not make the reason right, justifiable or true. Based on that reason, we should now be invading Pakistan.
Yes we should learn from our past mistakes. We should not be in or attacking Libya, it is a civil war not our war.
You are not a pragmatist. We can't make the world perfect but let's do what we can when the opportunity presents itself.
Here we have UN resolution support in favour of supporting a popular national movement, passive support from the Arab League, and the Chinese and Russians have kept their hands out of the pie.
Will the world be a better place with no Colonel Gaddaffi in it? Unqualified yes.
Let's do the deed. The Libyans can guide their own destiny once the nutter gangster has gone.
The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.
"Israel has been targetting civilian areas under the pretext of a suspected 'military' target for years, with no repercussions, yet Gaddafi does it and he's now a pariah and should be removed from power?"
Lots of people kick up a stink about Israel. We should do something about that too.
Anti-semtism is banded around if you start to critcism Israel. That said i don't know what it is like to be surrounded on all sides by enemies and only exist as a nation for 70 years. The issues surrounding the Levant are difficult, but if you take issue with Israel then you must take issue with the India, Pakistan, kashmir and bangladesh.
We do need to make the World a better place, but there is no magic wand. If we went mad and built huge militaries and went round bashing everyone into line we would end up with more instability and enemies. Slow and steady is the best way forward, incremental change, gentle not this highly charge and sweeping change across the middle east. This sweeping change will leave, weakened institutions and government and possible leave the countries open to failing and become "Failed States". The Libyan People need to stand up for themselves to a degree, look at the US, it stood upto a Tyrant and the Brits bit off more than we could chew, next thing you know the US was born in the midst of the Conflict.
I do think however we should help, unfortunately we have left it too late and to try to rectify this will cause death, derision and much heart ache. Damn Qaddafi and his supporters, and damn our Western Leaders dallying and doing little but debate until such point as action is inevitable and the overall cost is multiplied. Qadaffi has been on the Radar as a PITA for a bloody longtime (think IRA, Lockerbie etc etc) If you find Cancer you should cut it out immediately lest it fester and spread.
Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....
The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.
Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.
What are my opinions on this matter? Also, I don't think many people would consider me a 'Suzie Sunshine'....
This is a discussion board.
Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':
I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?
The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.
This is not going to go well for us, Gaddafi has a better AA than Saddam...
Arm-chair generalship, and unsupported. Tedious.
From news reports, civilian targets it appears....
Unsupported, but I bet you hoipe civilians have been targeted so you can complain about how bad the west is. Seriously, if you want to impress the chicks on campus, join a band. Tedious.
I say again this will not end well, we're supposedly enforcing a no fly zone, why are we destroying tanks, and attacking supply lines? Why are we destroying fuel depots? Why are we destroying transportation methods/routes?
It's all covered by the UN resolution. Not that it matters when you want something to be outraged about. Tedious.
Are we working on third time lucky here? Okay we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we'll get it right in Libya?
Yes, because this situation is exactly the same. Oh wait, no it isn't, you just think like a right-on teenager. Tedious.
See I told you they had oil over there. They planned the 911 so they could accuse the "terrorists". But really they wanted the oil!!
"look at the US, it stood upto a Tyrant and the Brits bit off more than we could chew, next thing you know the US was born in the midst of the Conflict."
Hey the French came to help us win that. Guess who was first to step forward again.
sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.
Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....
sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.
Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....
"Ordered" is the wrong word, but the way the request was originally termed made it pretty clear that if the Taliban didn't cut ties with Bin Laden and make it clear that they hadn't endorsed his actions--they were going down with him.
sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.
Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....
"Ordered" is the wrong word, but the way the request was originally termed made it pretty clear that if the Taliban didn't cut ties with Bin Laden and make it clear that they hadn't endorsed his actions--they were going down with him.
Endorsed? Half the terrorist groups in the Middle East 'endorsed his actions', yet you'll note America isn't invading countries over the likes of Hamas. As for going 'down with him', well, last time I checked, Bin Laden was still at large, and the Taliban was still fighting. And this is how many years on? I mean, sexiest_hero says they 'chose their own fate', but to be frank, seems to me that what's happening to America is just what happened to the Soviet Union, and the British Empire before them, in attempting to exert control over that region of the world.
Albatross wrote:
Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':
I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?
The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.
This thread is sucking my will to live.
Hang on. I'm leftist because I see this intervention as a cluster feth?
I hope this current action allows the rebels to get rid of Qaddafi and his tribe but,yeah, maybe I will sit smugly in my armchair whilst this police action a) radicalises a portion of Libyas Arab populace against the west AND B) Ends up alienating the rebels and pro democratic rebels due to expedient political hand wringing 'Here, have some planes flying over head but you can sort out the head hunters on the ground, who ever is left we will talk to about exploitation rights'.
Maybe, Alby, your idea of debate is WHOO HOO feth those don't use terms like that on Dakka please , napalm them to paradise! if so then I hope the rebel Rag heads slaughter the Qaddafi don't use terms like that on Dakka please. Maybe they will forget about the wests lack of effort.
Albatross wrote:
Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':
I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?
The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.
This thread is sucking my will to live.
Hang on. I'm leftist because I see this intervention as a cluster feth?
Not necessarily. THAT just makes you an idiot, because it's only Day 2 of the military intervention and you're itching for it to fail. You don't know how it will go, you only think you do - and THAT really isn't based on anything other than some perverse desire to see the Allies fail. See below:
I hope this current action allows the rebels to get rid of Qaddafi and his tribe but,yeah, maybe I will sit smugly in my armchair whilst this police action a) radicalises a portion of Libyas Arab populace against the west AND B) Ends up alienating the rebels and pro democratic rebels due to expedient political hand wringing 'Here, have some planes flying over head but you can sort out the head hunters on the ground, who ever is left we will talk to about exploitation rights'.
Maybe, Alby, your idea of debate is WHOO HOO feth those guys, napalm them to paradise! if so then I hope the rebel Rag heads slaughter the Qaddafi guys.
That's total crap, and I've reported you for the use of racist language.
Maybe they will forget about the wests lack of effort.
It must have took a lot of effort to type that, certainly more than the RAF and RN are putting in over in North Africa...
Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....
The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.
Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.
What are my opinions on this matter? Also, I don't think many people would consider me a 'Suzie Sunshine'....
This is a discussion board.
Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':
I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?
The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.
Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.
This is not going to go well for us, Gaddafi has a better AA than Saddam...
Arm-chair generalship, and unsupported. Tedious.
From news reports, civilian targets it appears....
Unsupported, but I bet you hoipe civilians have been targeted so you can complain about how bad the west is. Seriously, if you want to impress the chicks on campus, join a band. Tedious.
I say again this will not end well, we're supposedly enforcing a no fly zone, why are we destroying tanks, and attacking supply lines? Why are we destroying fuel depots? Why are we destroying transportation methods/routes?
It's all covered by the UN resolution. Not that it matters when you want something to be outraged about. Tedious.
Are we working on third time lucky here? Okay we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we'll get it right in Libya?
Yes, because this situation is exactly the same. Oh wait, no it isn't, you just think like a right-on teenager. Tedious.
See I told you they had oil over there. They planned the 911 so they could accuse the "terrorists". But really they wanted the oil!!
This thread is sucking my will to live.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....
The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.
Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.
What are my opinions on this matter? Also, I don't think many people would consider me a 'Suzie Sunshine'....
I was speaking in general terms when I said "you", and Frankly I'm not all that concerned or interested in your specific opinions, but have a nice day...
sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.
Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....
"Ordered" is the wrong word, but the way the request was originally termed made it pretty clear that if the Taliban didn't cut ties with Bin Laden and make it clear that they hadn't endorsed his actions--they were going down with him.
Endorsed? Half the terrorist groups in the Middle East 'endorsed his actions', yet you'll note America isn't invading countries over the likes of Hamas. As for going 'down with him', well, last time I checked, Bin Laden was still at large, and the Taliban was still fighting. And this is how many years on? I mean, sexiest_hero says they 'chose their own fate', but to be frank, seems to me that what's happening to America is just what happened to the Soviet Union, and the British Empire before them, in attempting to exert control over that region of the world.
"Half the terrorist groups in the Middle East" weren't legitimate governments when 9/11 happened.
The Taliban, however, wasn't a terrorist group--but an actual (loosely using the term here) legitimate government that was sheltering him, knowingly.
The Taliban government was presented with two options. Turn him over and decry his actions or side with him and get removed from power.
They chose the latter. And while the Taliban is "still fighting" and Bin Laden is "still at large"--the Taliban is no longer in control of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda no longer can operate brazenly in the open with the overt backing of a government like they did in Afghanistan.
Hey, look the Arab league is already grumbling that we are over reaching the mission goals. How long until they throw us under the bus?
How many Tomahawks has the US launched in this operation? Look even though the UN dragged the US into this "Action" it looks like the US is still going most of the work. Typical!
Kan, you seem to missing the point here. Which is that the world doesn't revolve around what America wants, and Uncle Sam and his apple pie/revolver going charging in doesn't necessarily result in things turning out the way America wants.
Sexiest_hero's terminology indicated a mildly amusing/shocking view of the world, in which America can 'order' other nations about, and failing to comply with aforementioned orders leaves them deserving their 'fate'.
Such a view is nonsensical, because as I've just demonstrated with the continued existence of the Taliban as a fighting force and the continued evasion of Bin Laden, the world doesn't work like that. America has failed to bring peace to Afganistan, and failed to procure Bin Laden. I personally doubt they'll achieve either, and will slink out of the region neither goal completed in the next five years or so.
Before anyone says, 'But you Brits are there too!' as if its a counterargument, yeah, sure we are. That doesn't change the fact that it was madness to go in there in the first place. No government has ever controlled all of Afganistan, and attempting to impose a national mentality on the place is doomed to failure.
Ketara wrote:Kan, you seem to missing the point here. Which is that the world doesn't revolve around what America wants, and Uncle Sam and his apple pie/revolver going charging in doesn't necessarily result in things turning out the way America wants.
It's funny because that's not how the opening days of Afghanistan were. But no, I got your point--as terribly asinine as it was.
Sexiest_hero's terminology indicated a mildly amusing/shocking view of the world, in which America can 'order' other nations about, and failing to comply with aforementioned orders leaves them deserving their 'fate'.
Yes because backchannel calls for them to hand over Bin Laden, no questions asked, is "ordering" other nations about.
There was, however, an ultimatum issued after the backchannels didn't work so I'll grant you that part at least.
Such a view is nonsensical, because as I've just demonstrated with the continued existence of the Taliban as a fighting force and the continued evasion of Bin Laden, the world doesn't work like that. America has failed to bring peace to Afganistan, and failed to procure Bin Laden. I personally doubt they'll achieve either, and will slink out of the region neither goal completed in the next five years or so.
And while Sexiest_hero's terminology was pretty crummily done, your example in replying to mine was just as poorly worded.
The Taliban, while still existing as a fighting force, are no longer an established government. That's the point I was making, which you seem to gloss over.
The Taliban has gone from being an absurdly brutal regime to being increasingly isolated and ineffective insurgents whose only reprieve is that they can still hurt the people they once ruled. While America has failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, it sure as hell didn't fail in removing the Taliban from being a major player in the Jihadist scene.
The continued evasion of Bin Laden is bad, sure. But simply by removing Afghanistan from the equation, we damaged his ability to do anything as serious as 9/11 again.
Could he still do it? Probably, if he tried hard enough. As it is though, I don't think any of the nations suspected of harboring him would be too okay with them
Before anyone says, 'But you Brits are there too!' as if its a counterargument, yeah, sure we are. That doesn't change the fact that it was madness to go in there in the first place. No government has ever controlled all of Afganistan, and attempting to impose a national mentality on the place is doomed to failure.
Er no. Going to Afghanistan was far from madness. Going to Iraq before Afghanistan was restabilized and an actual governmental framework was put into place was madness, but that's beside the point.
The problem with "no government has ever controlled all of Afghanistan" is that little "attempting to impose a national mentality on the place" part.
You don't win hearts and minds by trying to brute-force them all into one generic national title. Especially not in a region whose entire existence is really one great experiment in empire building adventure.
In a perfect world:
Afghanistan would be protected from the outside world and left to develop its own national identity.
But that won't happen. Iran and the Jihadi groups see Afghanistan as the perfect opportunity to strike at "The Great Satan" West, and the country really wasn't properly rebuilt the way it should have been following the collapse of the Taliban.
Kanluwen wrote:It's funny because that's not how the opening days of Afghanistan were. But no, I got your point--as terribly asinine as it was.
Ifg you get it, why are you nitpicking and continuously erecting strawmen? I'm not attacking GW here, honest!
Yes because backchannel calls for them to hand over Bin Laden, no questions asked, is "ordering" other nations about.
There was, however, an ultimatum issued after the backchannels didn't work so I'll grant you that part at least.
You'll note Sexiest_hero was the one who originally mentioned 'ordering'. You're getting who said what a little mixed up here. But you'll allow issuing of an ultimatum to count as an order? That it to say, a statement of the imperative type? My word! You are too kind sir!
The Taliban, while still existing as a fighting force, are no longer an established government. That's the point I was making, which you seem to gloss over.
Because its irrelevant. I'm talking about Americas perceived right to give 'orders', not its capability to militarily destroy a goverments capability to adminster its territory. Is that a strawman, you misunderstanding my point despite having declared you udnerstood it, or you wanting to argue about something else?
The Taliban has gone from being an absurdly brutal regime to being increasingly isolated and ineffective insurgents whose only reprieve is that they can still hurt the people they once ruled. While America has failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, it sure as hell didn't fail in removing the Taliban from being a major player in the Jihadist scene.
That's because they spend their time shooting up US servicemen instead. I'm not certain this is a notable improvement, but YMMV.
The continued evasion of Bin Laden is bad, sure. But simply by removing Afghanistan from the equation, we damaged his ability to do anything as serious as 9/11 again.
Could he still do it? Probably, if he tried hard enough. As it is though, I don't think any of the nations suspected of harboring him would be too okay with them
I somehow doubt Bin Laden was solely responsible for all of Al Quaeda's actions. And even if he were, taking out one of his erstwhile allies hardly puts a crimp in his schemes. Places like Iran are still more than happy to give Islamic terror groups money and arms, they just do it less overtly than the Taliban did.
Regardless of which, this is irrelevant to the main point I made, which is the mentality that America has a percieved right to give orders.
The problem with "no government has ever controlled all of Afghanistan" is that little "attempting to impose a national mentality on the place" part.
You don't win hearts and minds by trying to brute-force them all into one generic national title. Especially not in a region whose entire existence is really one great experiment in empire building adventure.
In a perfect world:
Afghanistan would be protected from the outside world and left to develop its own national identity.
But that won't happen. Iran and the Jihadi groups see Afghanistan as the perfect opportunity to strike at "The Great Satan" West, and the country really wasn't properly rebuilt the way it should have been following the collapse of the Taliban.
Sure. Whatever. I could argue this, but not only is it irrelevant to me what you think, its also way waaaay off topic now.
I made a statement about the mentality that led to the style of anothers members posting. You want to have some debate about the success of the Afghanistanian venture. Start a new thread and argue it with someone who is seriously interested in having a discussion on the issue, as opposed to warping someone else's discussion with strawmen.
Again, nothing stands in isolation our collective experience (US &UK) in Afghanistan and Iraq shape our Policy in Libya. Hence the reluctance to put troops on the ground, because it is dangerous, costly and to be honest I think the public in both Countries is tired of seeing coffins with flags drapped over them. After 10 years of near constant conflict post 911, both countries are War weary. The current fiscal climate being what it is, we could all do with not having to spend Billions diposing a mentally ill dictator (despite the fact he probably deserves it).
There is no quick fix, and the only one we had has already expired. To our American Friends please don't disengage from the world, i understand it shouldn't have to be you...But frankly it is, thats the price of Leadership and most countries look to you in all things.
To everyone who is America bashing, knock it off, I don't see your respective countries doing much and trying to help or policing the World. Its easy to criticise, get off your arse and do something.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I know what it means - what do you think it means?
@Slarg - You won't be drafted. If the draft wasn't reinstated for Iraq II, then it's not going to be reinstated now. I would say the chances of Obama commiting ground troops to Libya are slim to none.
Andrew1975 wrote:Hey, look the Arab league is already grumbling that we are over reaching the mission goals. How long until they throw us under the bus?
Yeah, I noticed that - that's a bloody quick turnaround on their part!
How many Tomahawks has the US launched in this operation?
Not sure, but British warships were involved too...
Bloomberg wrote:Yesterday’s strike involved 124 U.S. and United Kingdom missiles against 20 targets; in contrast 288 Tomahawks were fired in the opening hours of the 1991 Gulf War.
In addition to the missile launches, the U.S. used 19 aircraft to strike Libyan targets, including three radar- eluding, bat-winged B-2 bombers, which flew from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
The arsenal also included four Boeing Co (BA).-made F-15E and eight Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT).-made F-16CJ Air Force fighter jets. The Navy flew Boeing-made EA-18G electronic attack jets and the Marines flew at least four AV-8B Harrier jets, from the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge in the Mediterranean.
The U.K. deployed Tornado and BAE Systems Plc-made Eurofighter Typhoon jets.
Look even though the UN dragged the US into this "Action" it looks like the US is still going most of the work. Typical!
BBC wrote:UN Resolution 1973 - Votes
10 For - France, UK, Lebanon, US, South Africa, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Colombia, Portugal, Nigeria, Gabon
0 Against
5 Abstentions - China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany
The USA supported this action by voting for it - they were well within their rights to abstain, and could have opted out of military action had they wished. They weren't forced into anything. You need to drop the persecution complex, man. You'll give yourself an ulcer or something...
Alby, if this thread is so boring to you, why are you still posting in it?
In answer to some of your points, I would ask you not to make assumptions, but to initally assume that until such time that they make a obvious mistake that they may actually know something about which they are talking.
The Arab League has asked the same questions that some of us have asked here, the UN resolution is for a No-Fly zone above Libya to remove CG main advantage over the rebels. But it has moved beyond that to apparently attack prepositioned, stationary, army units. AFAIAM the resolution only allows us to attack units threatening/attacking civilians.
Lets look at the RAF. They have 7 GR4 Sqns, oops sorry, 2 have just been disbanded and 1 is a training sqn. So that leaves just 4 operational squadrons. 1 in Afghan, 1 in Iraq. The op tempo that the RAF is facing is going to cause fatigue errors and the planes themselves cannot maintain that level of flight readiness. If this continues for the forseeable future, then planes/crews will probably catastrophically fail.
Pilots under training have been made redundant, Numbers of RAF personnel have been cut, I believe the headline figures were app 1 in 8.
We have had to 'recover' scrapped aircraft for intelligence gathering, our main source of providing air support in the region would have been the Ark Royal with her Harriers, but we got rid of that as well.
Our armed forces are not in a position to maintain this. The hope was that the Arab nations would take over, but as you can see that is now in doubt.
Before you go ahead an decry what you see as a liberal attack on our armed forces actually read what has been said elsewhere. For example, not even our Government has come out and said that there has been no civilian casualties, just that they are not aware of any.
Dreading something happening, and saying so does not make you want it to happen.
AndrewC wrote:Alby, if this thread is so boring to you, why are you still posting in it?
I've asked myself the same question... 'can't sleep, beats facebook' is the closest I've come to an answer.
In answer to some of your points, I would ask you not to make assumptions, but to initally assume that until such time that they make a obvious mistake that they may actually know something about which they are talking.
The Arab League has asked the same questions that some of us have asked here, the UN resolution is for a No-Fly zone above Libya to remove CG main advantage over the rebels. But it has moved beyond that to apparently attack prepositioned, stationary, army units. AFAIAM the resolution only allows us to attack units threatening/attacking civilians.
UN Resolution 1979:
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
The resolution permits attacks on ground forces in order to prevent them from massacring civilians, which was what was about to happen in Benghazi. Also, we don't yet know the specifics of the units that were targeted, outside of the tanks that the French malleted. The Tomahawk attacks were on Gadaffi's air defences and airbases, reportedly.
Lets look at the RAF. They have 7 GR4 Sqns, oops sorry, 2 have just been disbanded and 1 is a training sqn. So that leaves just 4 operational squadrons. 1 in Afghan, 1 in Iraq. The op tempo that the RAF is facing is going to cause fatigue errors and the planes themselves cannot maintain that level of flight readiness. If this continues for the forseeable future, then planes/crews will probably catastrophically fail.
Attempts to impress me with technical knowledge aside, there is a huge amount of speculation in your statements. What exactly do you know about the 'op-tempo the RAF is facing'? Do you work for the MOD? The RAF? Do you have insider knowledge of the mission? I doubt that is the case, considering you don't seem to be clear on the guidelines set out by the UN resolution.
And why do you insist on ending your posts the way you do? It's annoying.
biccat wrote:There's a bill in the house, sponsored by a leading Democrat, who wants you to get drafted.
That's all you really need to know.
That's all someone else needs to know, if you were intent on giving them a completely misleading impression in order to dissaude them from a supporting political party based on an incomplete half truth.
What's actually relevant is that the bill in question is sponsored by one Democrat, and is opposed by the rest of his party in both houses of congress, opposed by the White House, and opposed by all arms of the military. It has exactly zero chance of getting up. Just as importantly, the Democrat in question didn't write the bill because of troop shortages or anything else that might sensibly drive a return of the draft, he did it because he's concerned about the over-representation of poor minorities in the armed forces. That is to say it's an attention getting bill, designed to draw attention to the idea that poverty causes more minorities to go off and risk their lives in the armed forces.
At which point, a person is able to decide whether they want to support a party that includes members who write attention getting bills based around racial politics, as opposed to the nonsense you were trying to imply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote:So remind me... are asassins Illegal or something?
Anyway... TBH I don't think our intervention is really improving the situation all that much... I hope I stand corrected on this.
Assassinations are illegal, but lots of illegal things get done in the name of national security and no-one really cares.
The point is that assassinations are almost always pointless, because as much as we like to simplify things and think Gadaffi is somehow responsible, the fact is that if we kill him then the rest of his government would still function, and someone else would step up into his role. The only way to change a government is to defeat that government entirely.
biccat wrote:There's a bill in the house, sponsored by a leading Democrat, who wants you to get drafted.
That's all you really need to know.
That's all someone else needs to know, if you were intent on giving them a completely misleading impression in order to dissaude [sic] them from a supporting political party based on an incomplete half truth.
You're absolutely right, no one ever impugns all Republicans based on the statements of one wacko.
The truth is that Democrats have a habit of attacking those who choose not to serve their country as "chickenhawks." They also play the class warfare angle of saying that the "rich" don't send their kids to fight.
So anyone else think the Arab League supporting the No-Fly Zone was in exchange for the U.N. (and more specifically, the U.S.) looking the other way to the brutal crackdown on Shia minorities in Bahrain?
evilsponge wrote:So anyone else think the Arab League supporting the No-Fly Zone was in exchange for the U.N. (and more specifically, the U.S.) looking the other way to the brutal crackdown on Shia minorities in Bahrain?
It isn't out of the question. Though I wonder how Iran feels about Libya at the moment?
So what do you guys think the likely hood of me being drafted as of right now is?
Not to sound shallow or anything, but that's all I really want to know.
That is not going to happen.
1. The American public has really had enough of these excursions in the name of global security. There is no way they would stand for a draft.
2. The people in charge of the US military like being a professional army. They have little to no interest in switching to conscripts.
You are safe.
Albatross wrote:
Lord Harrab wrote:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I know what it means - what do you think it means?
@Slarg - You won't be drafted. If the draft wasn't reinstated for Iraq II, then it's not going to be reinstated now. I would say the chances of Obama commiting ground troops to Libya are slim to none.
biccat wrote:You're absolutely right, no one ever impugns all Republicans based on the statements of one wacko.
And when they do they're peddling the same disingenuous crap you are.
At least I'd hope they properly describe the actions of that guy.
The truth is that Democrats have a habit of attacking those who choose not to serve their country as "chickenhawks."
Umm, the Democrats attack people who didn't serve their country, but are keen to engage in overseas operations as chickenhawks. You have to be a hawk to be a chickenhawk, it's kind of in the name there, and is really obvious unless you're playing around with half truths to score political points... oh yeah, that's what you were doing to start this little conversation of ours.
Stop it. It's lame.
They also play the class warfare angle of saying that the "rich" don't send their kids to fight.
Rangel is an oddity because he's honest.
Umm, what? He's making a political argument about racial equality, and doing it by proposing a bill that has zero chance of getting up. There's nothing honest about it the practice.
Lastly, you edited the quoted section of my post to add [sic] to a typo? What the feth is wrong with you?
Ketara wrote:Kan, you seem to missing the point here. Which is that the world doesn't revolve around what America wants, and Uncle Sam and his apple pie/revolver going charging in doesn't necessarily result in things turning out the way America wants.
Sexiest_hero's terminology indicated a mildly amusing/shocking view of the world, in which America can 'order' other nations about, and failing to comply with aforementioned orders leaves them deserving their 'fate'.
America can perfectly well ""order" other nations about" - as an order is an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate. Anyone can order anyone else around; America, being larger, stronger, and more capable of harming most other nations can do so with a reasonable likelihood of them obeying. Whether this was right or wrong, appropriate or not is up in the air - but nations can, will, have, and will continue to order others about.
Kanluwen wrote:...People here in the US really were worried about being drafted?
If they didn't reinstate the draft after the invasion of Iraq--it won't be reinstated.
More to the point, the army doesn't want it. They'd rather dedicate their equipment and training resources to troops who want to be there, who have made a commitment to serve their country. Having to supply and train all these kids who got drafted and don't want to be there is a net drain on resources.
they're peddling the same disingenuous crap you are.
Comments like this don't really contribute to a discussion and really do nothing to facilitate a dialogue, can users please strive to be a bit more polite to each other. Ta.
I don't understand why people are against intervening in Libyia. Would you rather he murdered his people and let the violence spill onto other countries; where it can potentially harm us? Or will it take another Lockerbie to finally wake people up?
My opinion on the subject? drown the region in missiles if its required. Gaddafi must be brought down.
Order may be a strong word but I do think it's the right one. The taliban were "asked" to turn over Bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi was "asked" to stop bombing civies. Had both complied things may well be very different in the world today. We like to use the word "Warned" but I don't like prancing around terms like a saytr around a maypole. "Don't bomb your civies", or "hand over Bin ladin", isn't a piece of notebook paper in the suggestion box. You damn well better believe we mean business.
@Alby, I would have thought that the info contained, in the first part, would have at least answered your second part.
The resolution isn't clear, it is an open ended document that allows any action under the heading of "all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"
What the hell does that mean? Apparently whatever you want. Your understanding is not my understanding, and apprently not Russias or the Arab States.
@Mr Hyena, my fear is that Gaddafi cannot win using conventional warfare and will move to unconventional warfare. And while some of the posters here do not remember the bad old days of the IRA, I do. Gaddafi contained within his own country not bothering us, callous I know, is better than him handing out Semtex to the PIRA, for example, like Jelly Babies.
@hero, if there was one single way to ensure that the Taliban refused to do something it was for the US to demand something from them. Gaddafi is/was/may still be continuing in his mentality of defying the US as he was at the time of Lockerbie.
It just a bit more awesome these days what with drones and hellfire missiles, more hollywood if you like. Nothing as backwards as a knife in the throat or a bullet.
AndrewC wrote:@Alby, I would have thought that the info contained, in the first part, would have at least answered your second part.
The resolution isn't clear, it is an open ended document that allows any action under the heading of "all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"
What the hell does that mean? Apparently whatever you want.
Not really, it states that coalition forces are allowed to step in and neutralise military threats (subject to the resolution - i.e. Gadaffi's armed forces and mercenaries) to the civilian population, short of arming the rebels (that's paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 - it deals with the arms embargo on Libya which applies to both parties to the conflict). The resolution also specifically prohibits the use of occupying ground troops by the coalition. It's all there in black and white if you care to read it. Have you read the resolution? Has anyone one here done so, incidentally? I'm betting one or two may have, but I'm more certain that the overwhelming majority will not.
I don't understand why people are against intervening in Libyia. Would you rather he murdered his people and let the violence spill onto other countries; where it can potentially harm us? Or will it take another Lockerbie to finally wake people up?
My opinion on the subject? drown the region in missiles if its required. Gaddafi must be brought down.
What happens in Libya would honestly have little to no effect on the US or the world for the most part. Leaders kill their people all the time in revolutions, but you know as a Sovereign Nation you kind of have that right. While I don't like to see people getting killed, its' really none of our business.
It could be said that that previous intervention is exactly what made the west targets of attacks in the first place. Lockerbie was retaliation to both western support of Israel and US intervention in the Gulf of Sidra. 911 was a response to Western troops being in the Gulf.
I'll say it again. People don't like to be messed with. I'm not saying all intervention is bad (most of it has been though), but constant meddling has made the west a target and for the most part has only made the regions worse and more unstable.
If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?
For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.
“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
Mr. Burning wrote:If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?
For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.
Mr. Burning wrote:If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?
For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.
They are doing that now actually.
Are they?
I hadn't read anywhere?
I know that the arms embargo covers both government and non government forces and wasn't that Mirage shot down a rebel flown one? I couldn't see how this resolution could be even handed.
Mr. Burning wrote:If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?
For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.
They are doing that now actually.
Wait, so the UN process is "everyone stop fighting and we'll help you hold what you have today"?
That seems slightly absurd.
Either we side with the rebels and take out Ghadaffi or we let this thing play out (I assume siding with Ghadaffi is out of the question).
Mr. Burning wrote:If rebels threaten non rebel held towns and cities (those loyal to gaddafi) will the the forces supporting the UN resolution intervene?
For example; rebels leave 'Rebel Town' and take up in a collection of vans captured apcs and what nots and proceed to 'gaddafi is bestest' village intent on taking it.
They are doing that now actually.
Wait, so the UN process is "everyone stop fighting and we'll help you hold what you have today"?
That seems slightly absurd.
Either we side with the rebels and take out Ghadaffi or we let this thing play out (I assume siding with Ghadaffi is out of the question).
Gaddafi has served his purpose and is now on the way out he did the sensible thing and stopped his programme of WMD acquisition and kept very quiet in the late 80's and early ninties (with Support for terrorism fading and the collapse of his Soviet bankroll) even quieter during Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 and Afghanistan.
Luckily for the west a popular uprising has made Gaddafis situation untenable but like most totalitarian regimes there ain't any plans to transfer power to the people.
gaddafi needs to be terminated, but if his people cannot do it, even with our help, there are going to be problems and open wounds, filled with western political salt, on both sides.
wasn't that Mirage shot down a rebel flown one? I couldn't see how this resolution could be even handed.
That's a Mig 23. I am unaware of a mirage going down, not saying it didn't happen, but this is currently the famous one. I would have to think that was a Libyan government jet shot down by rebels, those are what the US navy shot down in the 80's. I could be wrong but I don't see the rebels having the training to fly it, which could also explain the crash. If you look close, it looks like you can see the parachute from the pilot.
Found a report about the mirage.
"French military sources denied previous report that one of its planes carrying out operations in Libya was shot down on Saturday.
"We deny (that), all the planes that went out today have returned," spokesman of French General Staff, Thierry Burkhard was quoted by AFP as saying."
There is all kinds of info if you look
On 19 March 2011, a rebel Free Libyan Air Force MiG-23BN was shot down over Benghazi. That must be it in the video! Who shot it down, was this friendly fire? From the video it looked like rebel AA took it down. This is why I don't want our planes over there.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Maybe you would too, if you lived here and had to pay for a global defense force. How much is Libya costing Australia right now, oh yeah NOTHING! Did I miss something or did planes fly into Australian buildings because you had troops in the gulf. Do the French desecrate the graves of Australian troops who died on d-day. Oh i guess not.
I know what part the Aussie army has played supporting the US, so I'm thankful for that. But lets face it, to most people Australia is more famous for Men at work and Crocodile Dundee than International contributions, not really making you a target for Ire or threat.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Maybe you would too, if you lived here and had to pay for a global defense force
Considering there are people here (on both sides of the political aisle) that are ok with it, that argument doesn't really hold water. Just say you don't like it, don't parade your feelings as some mass movement.
Considering there are people here (on both sides of the political aisle) that are ok with it,
And there are people that aren't happy about it either......What's your point. There are quite a few people that don't think we need to be in Libya. In fact there are dems right now questioning impeachment. Sure they are wackjobs like Dennis Kusinich but still. There US is hardly in a general consensus that this is necessary and or good.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Maybe you would too, if you lived here and had to pay for a global defense force. How much is Libya costing Australia right now, oh yeah NOTHING! Did I miss something or did planes fly into Australian buildings because you had troops in the gulf. Do the French desecrate the graves of Australian troops who died on d-day. Oh i guess not.
I know what part the Aussie army has played supporting the US, so I'm thankful for that. But lets face it, to most people Australia is more famous for Men at work and Crocodile Dundee than International contributions, not really making you a target for Ire or threat.
Considering there are people here (on both sides of the political aisle) that are ok with it,
And there are people that aren't happy about it either......
I never said otherwise, unlike your statement which pretended to speak for everyone in the US.
Andrew1975 wrote:What's your point.
It isn't a riddle or esoteric.
Where does it say all Americans or all of America, it doesn't even say most of America. I've never claimed to be the voice of a nation. Where are you getting that?
The fact that the Arab league is already backpeddeling speaks volumes that fingers will be pointed.
Andrew1975 wrote:Maybe you would too, if you lived here and had to pay for a global defense force. How much is Libya costing Australia right now, oh yeah NOTHING! Did I miss something or did planes fly into Australian buildings because you had troops in the gulf.
But lets face it, to most people Australia is more famous for Men at work and Crocodile Dundee than International contributions, not really making you a target for Ire or threat.
I guess particularly ignorant people might assume that what it's jokingly parodied for in the US is what the whole of the world would understand about Australia. But there's a whole world out there that's got a lot more complexity and sophistication than your almost childlike view "people hate us and us alone and it's purely because we meddle in the affairs of other countries".
"people hate us and us alone and it's purely because we meddle in the affairs of other countries".
This is the problem, I've already given credence and credit to our allies that generally support the US such as England, Australia, and Canada among others. Not because I thought that the operations they executed together were vital to world security, but because at in general these allies do support each other. Now consider countries like France Italy and Germany for example.
Look at Libya. The US and UK are using expensive munitions to take out sandcastles at a cost to the US so far just in Tomahawk missles at Unit cost, $US 569,000, well that is $62.6 million for 110 of them. The rest of the allies are getting flight training in comparison. Italy is allowing bases to be used. It's an obvious tragedy, but not on the same level.
The Bali bombings were retaliation for US and Australian intervention. For Australia it was intervention in east Timor, that is within Australia's sphere, it not like it's 8000 miles away, unlike most US escapades, I could see your concern. One of those bombs went off in front of the US consulate, granted smaller bomb. Comparing the Bali bombings to 911 is hardly an even comparison. Not only did it not take place in Australia, its effects were much much less.
There is still no real strategy to this conflict. Does it stop at no-fly zones? Does it stop when big G is gone? Are there now going to be two separate Lybias? Enforcing no fly zones without any other goals is not a fix for anything. But resolution 1973 does not call for anything other than No fly zones. What happens then?
Not only am I not a fan of these conflicts, I really can't stand them when we do go in with no plan and both arms tied. At least if you are gonna do it, do it well.
"people hate us and us alone and it's purely because we meddle in the affairs of other countries".
This is the problem, I've already given credence and credit to our allies that generally support the US such as England, Australia, and Canada among others. Not because I thought that the operations they executed together were vital to world security, but because at in general these allies do support each other. Now consider countries like France Italy and Germany for example.
Look at Libya. The US and UK are using expensive munitions to take out sandcastles at a cost to the US so far just in Tomahawk missles at Unit cost, $US 569,000, well that is $62.6 million for 110 of them. The rest of the allies are getting flight training in comparison. Italy is allowing bases to be used. It's an obvious tragedy, but not on the same level.
The Bali bombings were retaliation for US and Australian intervention. For Australia it was intervention in east Timor, that is within Australia's sphere, it not like it's 8000 miles away, unlike most US escapades, I could see your concern. One of those bombs went off in front of the US consulate, granted smaller bomb. Comparing the Bali bombings to 911 is hardly an even comparison. Not only did it not take place in Australia, its effects were much much less.
There is still no real strategy to this conflict. Does it stop at no-fly zones? Does it stop when big G is gone? Are there now going to be two separate Lybias? Enforcing no fly zones without any other goals is not a fix for anything. But resolution 1973 does not call for anything other than No fly zones. What happens then?
Not only am I not a fan of these conflicts, I really can't stand them when we do go in with no plan and both arms tied. At least if you are gonna do it, do it well.
Do you actually understand what a sphere of influence is. I don't think you do.
wasn't that Mirage shot down a rebel flown one? I couldn't see how this resolution could be even handed.
That's a Mig 23. I am unaware of a mirage going down, not saying it didn't happen, but this is currently the famous one. I would have to think that was a Libyan government jet shot down by rebels, those are what the US navy shot down in the 80's. I could be wrong but I don't see the rebels having the training to fly it, which could also explain the crash. If you look close, it looks like you can see the parachute from the pilot.
Found a report about the mirage.
"French military sources denied previous report that one of its planes carrying out operations in Libya was shot down on Saturday.
"We deny (that), all the planes that went out today have returned," spokesman of French General Staff, Thierry Burkhard was quoted by AFP as saying."
There is all kinds of info if you look
On 19 March 2011, a rebel Free Libyan Air Force MiG-23BN was shot down over Benghazi. That must be it in the video! Who shot it down, was this friendly fire? From the video it looked like rebel AA took it down. This is why I don't want our planes over there.
Thank you for your in-depth reporting. I don't really care if its a Mirage or a Flogger variant.
but seriously, its not like the USA starts things it cant realistically finish... is it?
I'm not american; but this kind of thing annoys me. America is one of the few countries with the balls to take care of anything; without tip-toeing about and debating for centuries before taking any action. I'm not a warmonger but sometimes things should be done.
No country has the right to blame America for anything; unless that country has also done something proper to contribute to world security (and that knocks off a bunch of countries; almost including the UK. Iraq changes that for us; we did our duty.)
You need to know what its like actually doing security; rather than playing politics.
but seriously, its not like the USA starts things it cant realistically finish... is it?
I'm not american; but this kind of thing annoys me. America is one of the few countries with the balls to take care of anything; without tip-toeing about and debating for centuries before taking any action. I'm not a warmonger but sometimes things should be done.
No country has the right to blame America for anything; unless that country has also done something proper to contribute to world security (and that knocks off a bunch of countries; almost including the UK. Iraq changes that for us; we did our duty.)
You need to know what its like actually doing security; rather than playing politics.
Why does "America" need to do anything at all... Afterall, it is the USA that seems to be the initiator in all the worldwide shenanigans. Pciking its 'soft' targets in order to repair its poor economy. TBH, I believe they also need to justify their over-spending for decades on the Defence Force without action.
Also, 'world security': Seriously? This ties into my other thread, the UN has a 'Peace-keeping' force... why does the USA determine who is 'right' and 'wrong'? Most of these countries have been operating as they are for centuries without intervention... then suddenly, a country that that the USA decides gets invaded?
Another thing, have you ever wondered why 9-11 happened in the USA? It wasnt just because they had troops stationed in another country... there are many more reasons why somneone would strike back at them.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Maybe you would too, if you lived here and had to pay for a global defense force. How much is Libya costing Australia right now, oh yeah NOTHING! Did I miss something or did planes fly into Australian buildings because you had troops in the gulf. Do the French desecrate the graves of Australian troops who died on d-day. Oh i guess not.
I know what part the Aussie army has played supporting the US, so I'm thankful for that. But lets face it, to most people Australia is more famous for Men at work and Crocodile Dundee than International contributions, not really making you a target for Ire or threat.
Nice.
So this map wasn't a joke?
Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm not american; but this kind of thing annoys me. America is one of the few countries with the balls to take care of anything; without tip-toeing about and debating for centuries before taking any action. I'm not a warmonger but sometimes things should be done.
I don't get it. I thought France was the decisive one here.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Maybe you would too, if you lived here and had to pay for a global defense force. How much is Libya costing Australia right now, oh yeah NOTHING! Did I miss something or did planes fly into Australian buildings because you had troops in the gulf. Do the French desecrate the graves of Australian troops who died on d-day. Oh i guess not.
I know what part the Aussie army has played supporting the US, so I'm thankful for that. But lets face it, to most people Australia is more famous for Men at work and Crocodile Dundee than International contributions, not really making you a target for Ire or threat.
Seriously. I missed this on my first fly-by.
But after Emperor's Faithful quoted it... I seriously thought I was reading something written by britney Spears... who considers a tour in Canada as "having travelled overseas"...
I believe the primary problem (and possibly a consideration before future pro-USA posts) is the poor education standards in the USA. Afterall, why attempt to solve the (perceived) problems of others when your own socio-economic situation is deteriorating more-rapidly than your beareaucrats can handle?
Another point... why is the USA media allowed to blatantly lie to its own people and others concerning world affairs?
Owain wrote:I'm glad we're staying out of this one.
But we aren't.That's the problem. Really,no matter what, if this turns into a fiasco it will get blamed on the US.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Its accurate. The Arab League is already backpedalled. Bush had twice as many allies as the NeoBams. No good will come from this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AvatarForm wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
AvatarForm wrote:Funniest Mod post ever...
Ketara wrote:
but seriously, its not like the USA starts things it cant realistically finish... is it?
I'm not american; but this kind of thing annoys me. America is one of the few countries with the balls to take care of anything; without tip-toeing about and debating for centuries before taking any action. I'm not a warmonger but sometimes things should be done.
No country has the right to blame America for anything; unless that country has also done something proper to contribute to world security (and that knocks off a bunch of countries; almost including the UK. Iraq changes that for us; we did our duty.)
You need to know what its like actually doing security; rather than playing politics.
Why does "America" need to do anything at all... Afterall, it is the USA that seems to be the initiator in all the worldwide shenanigans. Pciking its 'soft' targets in order to repair its poor economy. TBH, I believe they also need to justify their over-spending for decades on the Defence Force without action.
Also, 'world security': Seriously? This ties into my other thread, the UN has a 'Peace-keeping' force... why does the USA determine who is 'right' and 'wrong'? Most of these countries have been operating as they are for centuries without intervention... then suddenly, a country that that the USA decides gets invaded?
Another thing, have you ever wondered why 9-11 happened in the USA? It wasnt just because they had troops stationed in another country... there are many more reasons why somneone would strike back at them.
Here's evidence of the Blame America crowd right here.
We just lost an F15. Its already cost too much. Time to leave.
It wasn't shot down, and both pilots have now been recovered.
I'm balling my eyes out here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
You're talking like you're doing something. I don't see Australian jets flying over Libya, just your internet lips flapping.
Haven't you heard? All we backwards Aussies do is wrestle Crocs and eat Kangaroos. Sorry mate, out of our jurisdiction.
I didn't say it was shot down. But again you wouldn't know as Your guys aren't flying are they? So you're jabbing yet your country has no skin in the game. I proffer what that makes you but then I'd have to suspend myself.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't say it was shot down. But again you wouldn't know as Your guys aren't flying are they? So you're jabbing yet your country has no skin in the game. I proffer what that makes you but then I'd have to suspend myself.
So, tell me Frazzy. What are you doing to help the situation in Libya.
It wasn't shot down, and both pilots have now been recovered.
I'm balling my eyes out here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
You're talking like you're doing something. I don't see Australian jets flying over Libya, just your internet lips flapping.
Haven't you heard? All we backwards Aussies do is wrestle Crocs and eat Kangaroos. Sorry mate, out of our jurisdiction.
I didn't say it was shot down. But again you wouldn't know as Your guys aren't flying are they? So you're jabbing yet your country has no skin in the game. I proffer what that makes you but then I'd have to suspend myself.
I believe the point was already made, Frazzled. We dont need to be there... afterall, it is TEAM AMERICA, World Police... we just lend a hand when you realise (once again) that you have bitten off more than you can chew.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't say it was shot down. But again you wouldn't know as Your guys aren't flying are they? So you're jabbing yet your country has no skin in the game. I proffer what that makes you but then I'd have to suspend myself.
So, tell me Frazzy. What are you doing to help the situation in Libya.
Sending letters to my representatives telling them I won't support them financially in future campaigns if this continues.
Owain wrote:I'm glad we're staying out of this one.
But we aren't.That's the problem. Really,no matter what, if this turns into a fiasco it will get blamed on the US.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Its accurate. The Arab League is already backpedalled. Bush had twice as many allies as the NeoBams. No good will come from this.
Look, another one!
You're talking like you're doing something. I don't see Australian jets flying over Libya, just your internet lips flapping.
And what the feth are YOU doing!? Let's be real here, you are doing feth all - you just like to chest-beat on behalf of the USA, treating their military victories as your victories, and their efforts as your efforts. You are the worst kind of arm-chair warrior. You can claim no credit here whatsoever.
Also, I would like to add to the calls for less America-bashing, for the reasons already set out by other posters.
but seriously, its not like the USA starts things it cant realistically finish... is it?
I'm not american; but this kind of thing annoys me. America is one of the few countries with the balls to take care of anything; without tip-toeing about and debating for centuries before taking any action. I'm not a warmonger but sometimes things should be done.
No country has the right to blame America for anything; unless that country has also done something proper to contribute to world security (and that knocks off a bunch of countries; almost including the UK. Iraq changes that for us; we did our duty.)
You need to know what its like actually doing security; rather than playing politics.
Why does "America" need to do anything at all... Afterall, it is the USA that seems to be the initiator in all the worldwide shenanigans. Pciking its 'soft' targets in order to repair its poor economy. TBH, I believe they also need to justify their over-spending for decades on the Defence Force without action.
Also, 'world security': Seriously? This ties into my other thread, the UN has a 'Peace-keeping' force... why does the USA determine who is 'right' and 'wrong'? Most of these countries have been operating as they are for centuries without intervention... then suddenly, a country that that the USA decides gets invaded?
Another thing, have you ever wondered why 9-11 happened in the USA? It wasnt just because they had troops stationed in another country... there are many more reasons why somneone would strike back at them.
I wish America didn't have to. I wish the UN was an ACTUALLY USEFUL organisation. America shouldn't get involved in every conflict; but from what it seems to me; is because countries like the UK don't do quite near enough.
I also wish my fellow European countries weren't so lazy and useless that we have to rely on America to try and keep relative peace. France and Germany are especially useless places; but at least France has finally started to wake up and do something against the crapstorm in the middle east.
Otherwise everywhere will be like Libya before this conflict; a hellhole.
I wish America didn't have to. I wish the UN was an ACTUALLY USEFUL organisation. America shouldn't get involved in every conflict; but from what it seems to me; is because countries like the UK don't do quite near enough.
No, you're wrong here. Completely wrong. Britain does more militarily on the global stage than almost all other countries - there are better targets for your ire, such as Germany, China, India, Brazil... all economically powerful nations, all failing in their duties to the global community.
It wasn't shot down, and both pilots have now been recovered.
I'm balling my eyes out here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
You're talking like you're doing something. I don't see Australian jets flying over Libya, just your internet lips flapping.
Haven't you heard? All we backwards Aussies do is wrestle Crocs and eat Kangaroos. Sorry mate, out of our jurisdiction.
I didn't say it was shot down. But again you wouldn't know as Your guys aren't flying are they? So you're jabbing yet your country has no skin in the game. I proffer what that makes you but then I'd have to suspend myself.
I believe the point was already made, Frazzled. We dont need to be there... afterall, it is TEAM AMERICA, World Police... we just lend a hand when you realise (once again) that you have bitten off more than you can chew.
Well in Australia's defense, they are Freedom's last line of defense against evil commies/aliens/zombies with their strategic drop bear/crocodile reservoir. America yea! falls, the drop bears are released, and then the great WeinerHorn will sound the coming of Dachshundrskrieg.
So remember boys and girls, if you are walking along and hear "Die Valkyrie," and see on TV an ocean of weiner dogs forming up in parade ranks in the Great Plains, and your TV is suddenly taken over by an ancient weiner dog dressed like Patton barking orders, then you will know the Time of Man has ended, the time of Wiener Dogs has begun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
I wish America didn't have to. I wish the UN was an ACTUALLY USEFUL organisation. America shouldn't get involved in every conflict; but from what it seems to me; is because countries like the UK don't do quite near enough.
No, you're wrong here. Completely wrong. Britain does more militarily on the global stage than almost all other countries - there are better targets for your ire, such as Germany, China, India, Brazil... all economically powerful nations, all failing in their duties to the global community.
Owain wrote:I'm glad we're staying out of this one.
But we aren't.That's the problem. Really,no matter what, if this turns into a fiasco it will get blamed on the US.
You really do have a serious problem with this whole US v The World concept, don't you?
Its accurate. The Arab League is already backpedalled. Bush had twice as many allies as the NeoBams. No good will come from this.
Look, another one!
You're talking like you're doing something. I don't see Australian jets flying over Libya, just your internet lips flapping.
And what the feth are YOU doing!? Let's be real here, you are doing feth all - you just like to chest-beat on behalf of the USA, treating their military victories as your victories, and their efforts as your efforts. You are the worst kind of arm-chair warrior. You can claim no credit here whatsoever.
Also, I would like to add to the calls for less America-bashing, for the reasons already set out by other posters.
Why do you all continue to refer to the USA as "America"?
Why do you all continue to refer to the USA as "America"?
America = continent
USA = country
Because I want to, and you're not in a position to stop me. Sound good?
Also:
America = Colloquial name referring to the United States of America
North America = Continent
Excellent. In unity with your "don't let facts hold me back" stance I shall call England - Western France, unoccupied Scotland, or occasionally Haggisland.
It wasn't shot down, and both pilots have now been recovered.
I'm balling my eyes out here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
You're talking like you're doing something. I don't see Australian jets flying over Libya, just your internet lips flapping.
Haven't you heard? All we backwards Aussies do is wrestle Crocs and eat Kangaroos. Sorry mate, out of our jurisdiction.
I didn't say it was shot down. But again you wouldn't know as Your guys aren't flying are they? So you're jabbing yet your country has no skin in the game. I proffer what that makes you but then I'd have to suspend myself.
I believe the point was already made, Frazzled. We dont need to be there... afterall, it is TEAM AMERICA, World Police... we just lend a hand when you realise (once again) that you have bitten off more than you can chew.
Well in Australia's defense, they are Freedom's last line of defense against evil commies/aliens/zombies with their strategic drop bear/crocodile reservoir. America yea! falls, the drop bears are released, and then the great WeinerHorn will sound the coming of Dachshundrskrieg.
So remember boys and girls, if you are walking along and hear "Die Valkyrie," and see on TV an ocean of weiner dogs forming up in parade ranks in the Great Plains, and your TV is suddenly taken over by an ancient weiner dog dressed like Patton barking orders, then you will know the Time of Man has ended, the time of Wiener Dogs has begun.
Brazil is busy.
I always assumed this would be the way the Apocalypse went down... 2012 you say?
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:
AvatarForm wrote:
Why do you all continue to refer to the USA as "America"?
America = continent
USA = country
Because I want to, and you're not in a position to stop me. Sound good?
Also:
America = Colloquial name referring to the United States of America
North America = Continent
Excellent. In unity with your "don't let facts hold me back" stance I shall call England - Western France, unoccupied Scotland, or occasionally Haggisland.
I wish America didn't have to. I wish the UN was an ACTUALLY USEFUL organisation. America shouldn't get involved in every conflict; but from what it seems to me; is because countries like the UK don't do quite near enough.
.
My dear boy, that's because we figured out a good fifty or so years ago that people don't like to be helped. Remember the Empire? Or the Romans?
We've already done the whole colonial thing that you American chaps are up to now, we've been there, done it, and finished with it.
Albatross wrote:Fair enough. Hey, how are you folks over in 'Britain's Beachfront Property' doing, anyway?
Oh, we manage to get by... strengthening our economy while largely ignoring the inbred northern relations.
We have Prince Willy visiting right now... though I must say, I met the young bloke in person on Saturday and all his "higher breeding" has not achieved as much as you would hope.
His pronunciation is atrocious... and you claim to have invented the language...
Im not even going to touch on his personal hygiene... I think Diana did much better when she had Harry to the non-Royal bloke... probably what's best for the gene-pool.
Await my letter via Royal Mail for further details.
gak. The UN is utterly irrelevant and has no legal impramitur on whether a declaration of war is needed. This isn't the world government air force, its the Mutha 
.jpg)
...Exactly how did we make the jump from military actions in Libya to 911 conspiracies??
)
