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.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm quite surprised that people aren't keen to get revenge for the Lockerbie bombing.

That would involve nukes and salting the earth.

Eldanar wrote: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...)

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").

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739

..immediate ceasefire, announced 8 minutes ago.

..hmm... guess we'll see.

The oppurtunity is gone.

ninja'd...

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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:

Kanluwen wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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."

I don't see that working out well for anyone!

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

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.

Latest developments....

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.

What?! Gaddafi lied?! I never saw this coming! Sly bastard!


Seriously, did anyone believe the whole cease fire thing?

T'was just propaganda to slow down the rest of the world.

Soladrin wrote:What?! Gaddafi lied?! I never saw this coming! Sly bastard!quote]

+1

If they are going to bomb in support of the rebels, they had better start pretty damn quickly or we are just going to be at war with Gaddaffi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The BBC reports that the French air force is over Libya now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971