DeusImperator wrote:So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.

What say 'ye?

Ahtman wrote:There is no Libyan situation. We are not at war with Libya, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

We had several posts but it has been a week since the last.

the chocolate milk ration at elementary schools is up 50%.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I don't understand your question. "Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution" By this do you mean to say you support Gaddafi? Who is the ruling government? You give two options and then you pick a third that is ambiguous.

Two state solution is a great answer. The UN will then have to babysit the new one from constant Gaddafi attack, much as they are now. Terrible plan.

U.N. just requested more precision strike aircraft form the US. Apparently only our bombs are accurate enough to hit military targets that have been built next to civilian targets. THAT WILL NOT END WELL.

I personally support the ruling government. I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi. Again, what I meant by saying I would accept a binational solution if total victory could not be achieved by either Gadaffi or the TNC.

Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?

Andrew1975 wrote:

I personally support the ruling government. I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi.

Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

I personally support the ruling government. I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi.

Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?

The majority of Libya seems to support him.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Besides that the U.S. has spent over a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.

Khornholio wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Besides that the U.S. has spent over a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.

Oil, banking interests, construction contracts, military contracts are the reasons that instantly spring to my mind. The Libyan people, if they are any part of the reason at all, I'd imagine are at the bottom of the list on the very last page. Written in the margin. In yellow crayon.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is quite clear that Gaddaffi must go. It is also clear that the UN has decided he must go.

No-one has a clear idea of how to make him go.

Options:

Assassination. I don't think this would be acceptable to anyone, as well as being quite hard to pull off.

Direct military support for the rebels -- i.e. troops on the ground. If good troops could be found, they would roll up Gaddaffi's crappy mercenaries pretty quickly under NATO air support. But it is not part of the UN resolution. Direct support should ideally involve Turkish or Arabic troops rather than European. This could be difficult to arrange.

Continue air operations in support of the rebels until they get themselves better organised and shove Gaddaffi out. Possibly coupled with covert direct support such as weapons and "advisors". This would be an extension of the current operation. I don't know if a new UN resolution would be needed. There is always the option of going without, as we did in Iraq. However, not diplomatically preferred.

Negotiated peace with Gaddaffi resigning his position and given asylum in another country. Buy him off, in other words. This may be difficult as he is a volatile character and may genuinely think he can win, or prefer to go down fighting. The rebels my not want to let him go.

Andrew1975 wrote:Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either.

And to think I considered the recent thread where some people were relishing "not giving a damn" about sweat shop exploitation was a low point.

Andrew1975 wrote:Nope you don't support him, or nope you're not effing with us?

DeusImperator wrote:So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.

What say 'ye?

Andrew1975 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

I personally support the ruling government. I apologize for being so unclear. By the ruling government, I mean Gaddafi.

Really? You support Gaddafi? You are effing with us right?

The majority of Libya seems to support him.

Where are you getting that from? Every article I have read has shown he has a tentative grasp on the people and reality!

Look I am not a supporter of U.S. intervention. I didn't think the U.N. should have bothered with him and I really didn't think the US should have gotten involved. Hell, if G wants to drop bombs on his own people, I don't really care. As long as he kept the oil flowing I really didn't care. Some people call this callous or irresponsible, I don't really care about that either. He had been tame for quite some time and was behaving himself on an international level.

That being said, the U.N. has stepped in and now there are many, many reasons why you should not support Gaddafi remaining in power. This is a man that has shown that he has no problem going after anyone who slights him, and will use any means necessary to take that revenge. If he is allowed to wield power again he will go on a killcrazy rampage through rebel held territory, followed by plots against anyone who supported them including members of the UN and US. Remember Lockerbee. Not to mention how he would change his quiet stance on western powers and the free flow of oil.

Besides that the U.S. has spent almost a billion dollars on this operation (budgeted or not) I would like to believe there was good reason for this.

Maybe you don't know the history of this guy, but you need to do your research.

Guy has got to go!

And there are a lot of people that agree with me.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/14/gadhafi.op.ed/index.html?hpt=T2

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, legally this is correct (if the person being hugged does not consent).

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma

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.

Frazzled wrote:

DeusImperator wrote:So I'm honestly rather surprised there isn't a thread on this already; so I'm going to start one. What are your thoughts about the current civil war in Libya? Do you support the Transitional National Council? Or Qudaffi? I personally support the ruling government but I would also support a two state solution; however much the thought on an Islamist Libya irks\worries me.

What say 'ye?

Because of how this has been handled:
1. Oil is ~$15 higher than it should be under current factors
2. Instead of being resolved by now, the civil continues and is already more bloody than what would have occured.
3. Now everyone is stuck in a major ongoing shitstorm.

Smooth move guys.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Preferably with the bombs he sent them.

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

Preferably with the bombs he sent them.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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

Andrew1975 wrote:

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

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

Kilkrazy wrote:Slightly OT, do you feed them real bones?

Kilkrazy wrote:The treaty defines the way in which obligations are formed.

It could hardly define the specific forces required as when ratified in 1945 they did not have a time machine to go forwards and see what emergencies would arise.

Kilkrazy wrote:No-one seems to give dogs real bones anymore.

That's why there aren't any white dog eggs around.

Another great tradition gone.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The treaty defines the way in which obligations are formed.

It could hardly define the specific forces required as when ratified in 1945 they did not have a time machine to go forwards and see what emergencies would arise.

The point remains that the War Powers Act makes it so that the President can not deploy troops to any action for more than 60 days without consulting Congress. As far as the US is concerned, our own laws outweight treaties we've signed.

Not to mention that the fact remains that regardless of any agreements the US has signed onto, they are only treaties. If the US chose to ignore them, there isn't much the UN can do, but ask the US very nicely to reconsider their decision.

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