Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's because they've only done half a job, the rebels aren't is a position to take advantage of the damage done to Gadaffi's forces. We should have supplied them with arms straight away.

Did that in Afghanistan, ended up creating the Taliban. Rebels != Better Than Current Government, just because. We didn't do our research in Afghanistan, let's try to avoid the same mistake here. All sentimality aside, we have to know that we don't know who or what these rebels are other than a 'We Hate Gadaffi' club....can we afford to take the risk that they'll radicalize?

Mind you I am down with sending arms. I am down with pulling a USSR circa 1960-1990 and arming the rebels

Rebels for Freedom! Freedom Hurr!!!
(or not, I'm also fine with live and let live ala Japan/Switzerland).

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
As a UN Security Council member, the USA has a treaty obligation to support UN Security Council decisions with treasure, and with force when required.

In other words, it actually is the US taxpayers' job to blah blah blah. Other countries' taxpayers pay too.

Obviously it is best to get involved when there is a good opportunity and goal. The "Arab Spring" presents such opportunities. The reason for getting involved in Libya is that the regime there is much shakier than Syria or Bahrain.

Please find me the clause in the UN charter where the US has to commit a damn thing. If so the other 180ish members are also violating it. Where is Brazil's awesome Samba army?

Now that I think about Brazil would be perfect in this situation. The average trooper/rebel/civilian would just lose it and run home screaming if this came rocking down the road.

Article 2.5 requires all UN members to assist the UN.

Article 2.7 allows the UN to use its powers under Chapter VII to intervene in domestic disputes.

The provision of armed forces by member nations is covered in Articles 41 to 45, which is part of Chapter VII.

However the UN never really fully lives up to its mandate, now does it? Just because it's in the charter doesn't mean that some states can just say, 'Meh, Feth it,' and if the nation is powerful enough....then what? If the US decided to say 'screw you UN!' what could the UN do? Well, it COULD do alot...but what WOULD it do? Say OK and leave the US alone.

Do you really think the USA is going to repudiate the UN Charter?

The US can apply its veto to any resolutions it doesn't like...

And no, Kilkrazy, they don't repudiate the Charter... but they do blatantly defy UN wishes (ala Iraq).

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really think the USA is going to repudiate the UN Charter?

No, but it can if it so chooses.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
As a UN Security Council member, the USA has a treaty obligation to support UN Security Council decisions with treasure, and with force when required.

In other words, it actually is the US taxpayers' job to blah blah blah. Other countries' taxpayers pay too.

Obviously it is best to get involved when there is a good opportunity and goal. The "Arab Spring" presents such opportunities. The reason for getting involved in Libya is that the regime there is much shakier than Syria or Bahrain.

Please find me the clause in the UN charter where the US has to commit a damn thing. If so the other 180ish members are also violating it. Where is Brazil's awesome Samba army?

Now that I think about Brazil would be perfect in this situation. The average trooper/rebel/civilian would just lose it and run home screaming if this came rocking down the road.

Article 2.5 requires all UN members to assist the UN.

Article 2.7 allows the UN to use its powers under Chapter VII to intervene in domestic disputes.

The provision of armed forces by member nations is covered in Articles 41 to 45, which is part of Chapter VII.

Assistance is galactically different then being bound to send in the Marines. Again, if it were real we'd have th US standing next to Paraguay, next to Iceland, next to Ghana, next to Egypt, and next to... Liechtenstein! (ahhhhhh!) The closest we've came to that is Gulf War I The Saddam Menace.

Too late to un-bomb Libyia I suppose, so I guess that I will side with the rebels on this one.

Blokes a nutcase and need to go.

I'm against him taking residence in another country because it will almost certainly be the UK (although I would relish sending him to Scotland, sort of ironic I think).

As the head Nato man said the other day this will go on for some months yet. so lets not get impatient. Really it comes down to the rebels getting their act together. Gaddaffi's army is pretty poor compared to western standards but much better trained and armed than the rebels. so even with NATO air support blunting Gaddafi's heavy weapons they will make slow or little progress without arms or training.

I would suggest the current lull my be down to the rebels getting the latter?

Anyway the real reason for the intervention id because the RAF want to try the new Ground Attack capability of the Typhoon to see if it will help generate sales of a possible RAF Flight Sim. Think of it as a Marketing exercise.

Send him to Ireland, I'm sure they have LOTS to ask him.

Preferably with the bombs he sent them.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really think the USA is going to repudiate the UN Charter?

No, but it can if it so chooses.

So can any country.

Kilkrazy wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really think the USA is going to repudiate the UN Charter?

No, but it can if it so chooses.

So can any country.

Exactly my point.

Melissia wrote:Send him to Ireland, I'm sure they have LOTS to ask him.

Preferably with the bombs he sent them.

He'll love the Craic.

It'll be like two old mates seeing each other for the first time in years.

Melissia wrote:Send him to Ireland, I'm sure they have LOTS to ask him.

Preferably with the bombs he sent them.

They'll just let him go. Like they did with the last terrorist.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really think the USA is going to repudiate the UN Charter?

It has come very close several times. Especially when they do not agree with what the US objectives. The US does not need the UN, however the UN does need the US.

So it appears that the big difference between Obama and Bush is that while both are willing to get us into a war with no clear strategy, no clear goal, and no plan for exit over something that doesn't directly affect US interests, Obama will wait for the UN to tell us to do it first. Yay, this is a completely different middle eastern mess this time around!

Kilkrazy wrote:As a UN Security Council member, the USA has a treaty obligation to support UN Security Council decisions with treasure, and with force when required.

Nope, doesn't exist. Article 2.5 only requires that members assist the UN, it doesn't actually have specific require spending or military force requirements. Where are the Brazilian, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, German, Zimbabwean, etc. planes that should be flying along with us if there's really some treaty obligation? Having a politician give a speech saying 'someone should do something' qualifies as support, that's what we should do.

In other words, it actually is the US taxpayers' job to blah blah blah. Other countries' taxpayers pay too.

No, they contribute what we should, vocal support and anything substantive only if they really want to, and that rarely. Who's paying for the missiles, planes, maintenance on all of it, the long term costs to have the trained pilots, and all the rest? I don't think too many dollars are flowing in from France or Iran, after all.

You don't have to repudiate it, just ignore it utterly, like pretty much most countries.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So it appears that the big difference between Obama and Bush is that while both are willing to get us into a war with no clear strategy, no clear goal, and no plan for exit over something that doesn't directly affect US interests, Obama will wait for the UN to tell us to do it first. Yay, this is a completely different middle eastern mess this time around!

Kilkrazy wrote:As a UN Security Council member, the USA has a treaty obligation to support UN Security Council decisions with treasure, and with force when required.

Nope, doesn't exist.

It's in Articles 43 and 45. I mentioned this earlier. You seem to have misunderstood those parts.

Anyway the real reason for the intervention id because the RAF want to try the new Ground Attack capability of the Typhoon to see if it will help generate sales of a possible RAF Flight Sim. Think of it as a Marketing exercise.

The reality of this situation is striking actually. Remember this whole situation started with French saber rattling. They have many new weapons systems including the Dassault Rafale that they would love to prove so they can sell more of them on the international market. Arms sales are a very real, big, and profitable business.

They do say the US and USSR loved the Israeli-Arabic conflict, as a test bed for military technology. The Americans got to try out their new aircraft and electronics, and the Soviets got to test their SAMs against American aircraft.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's in Articles 43 and 45. I mentioned this earlier. You seem to have misunderstood those parts.

You seem reluctant to quote. Probably because 43 explicitly says that any troops or access are not part of the base treaty, but done by individual agreements "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes" - in other words it explicitly leaves it entirely up to Congress how much, if any, military force the US should send. 45 refers back to 43, which again explicitly leaves whether any force at all is committed up to an agreement ultimately decided by congress.

It's pretty obvious that it doesn't obligate anyone to anything, since every country but the US feels free to contribute or not based on their current mood.

For someone who only has a tangential hold he seems to be doing an excellent job. Despite US er NATO yea NATO bombing he's recaptured just about everything and is not bombarding the remaining rebel areas. His opposition is not coherent in its capabilities. This is a tribal fight gone bad and now exasperated by the intervention. More people will die because of it than if it had not occurred. But thats ok because France meant well (ok it didn't it was protecting Total) oh well...

Control of the military does not equal support of the people.

France was attempting to make a power play, they are sick of being treated like the insignificant stepchild that they are. They really want to be a global player again.

They do say the US and USSR loved the Israeli-Arabic conflict, as a test bed for military technology. The Americans got to try out their new aircraft and electronics, and the Soviets got to test their SAMs against American aircraft.

Oh absolutely! The French have seen their share of the arms market steadily decrease over the past few decades as the US products have shown superiority. France was selling lots integrated air defence systems until the US obliterated Iraq's, which was French.

Wait, someone cares about support of the people? Thats what the artillery is for.

Frazzled wrote:Wait, someone cares about support of the people? Thats what the artillery is for.

No, no. Artillery is to support the soldier "King of the battle field style". If you want to support the people you have to use stakes, "Vlad the Impaler style"

Whiff of grapeshot, Andrew. Remember your history!

Give 'em a bit of the grape?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's in Articles 43 and 45. I mentioned this earlier. You seem to have misunderstood those parts.

You seem reluctant to quote. Probably because 43 explicitly says that any troops or access are not part of the base treaty, but done by individual agreements "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes" - in other words it explicitly leaves it entirely up to Congress how much, if any, military force the US should send. 45 refers back to 43, which again explicitly leaves whether any force at all is committed up to an agreement ultimately decided by congress.

It's pretty obvious that it doesn't obligate anyone to anything, since every country but the US feels free to contribute or not based on their current mood.

Look up Article 45.

Chapter VII covers the security arrangements to be handled by the Security Council (of which the USA is a permanent member). Those arrangements involve both permanently available forces for emergency use such as in Libya, and temporarily available forces for ongoing operations like the Korean War.

The USA has voluntarily made such agreements both as a member of the Security Council and as a member nation. Once made, such agreements are treaty obligations. Obviously they can be varied, however variances require renegotiation and reconsideration by national governments. Until changes are completed, the obligation is still in effect.

If the USA wants to leave the UN, it can. The organisation is voluntary. However until a country resigns, it is still bound by its existing agreements.

If the USA wants to stay in the UN and get the Brazilians or the South Africans to contribute to operations, the US can do that as well.

Please reference the actual treaty langauge defining the forces the US must commit to an operation (don't bother actually). It 'aint there.

On the positive the US Congress controls and could shut it down at any time. The fact they don't is two faced cowardice.

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up Article 45.

Chapter VII covers the security arrangements to be handled by the Security Council (of which the USA is a permanent member). Those arrangements involve both permanently available forces for emergency use such as in Libya, and temporarily available forces for ongoing operations like the Korean War.

The USA has voluntarily made such agreements both as a member of the Security Council and as a member nation. Once made, such agreements are treaty obligations. Obviously they can be varied, however variances require renegotiation and reconsideration by national governments. Until changes are completed, the obligation is still in effect.

There is a LOT more going on with US military involvement than a treaty obligation Kilkrazy. Congressional approval is required for all military action, regardless of any treaty. The president cannot (nor can his authorized UN ambassador) unilaterally enter into a military engagement without complying with US law on the issue.

I have a lot of friends who specialize in International Law, and the truth is when you start trying to get countries to act in accordance with their treaty obligations (that is, when specific action is required), you're dealing with major power plays. The treaty ends up only being as good as the will to enforce it. There's essentially no will to enforce the UN treaty on the US because we generally will agree to commit troops to a UN action. And if the UN tried to enforce the treaty on the US, the backlash would probably signal an end to the UN.

If you're interested on how the treaty power conflicts with Constitutional limitations, here's a good article. Or just read the Supreme Court's opinion in Medellin v. Texas if you're more interested in how treaties interface within the US federalist system.

Frazzled wrote:Give 'em a bit of the grape?

Well to be fair you said support not turn into burger!