Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#127 Mar 21 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
3 pages later and not to many Dems jumping to defend Obama's current foreign policy blunder.



I'm still scratching my head at how you can be against Obama taking military action in Libya. Like Iraq, Libya's got oil. Like Iraq, they have a dictator. Unlike Iraq, the UN actually supports taking military action. Unlike Iraq, the people rose up before we started fighting there. Unlike Iraq, we hopefully won't see any casualties nor a dragged-out war.

It's pretty much all good and no bad. We act as the world police, are seen as heroes, and get to fire off some explosives costing tax-payers millions of dollars. Might even get a good oil deal out of it. From a Republican POV, it's pretty much the perfect fight.

My first post in this thread was largely tongue in cheek. The difference is that this is a civil war. We have no business getting militarily involved in a civil war.

On Iraq, the United Nations Security Council passed multiple resolutions authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Suggesting that they didn't support the action is just a bit hollow.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#128varusword75, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 11:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#129 Mar 21 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
3 pages later and not to many Dems jumping to defend Obama's current foreign policy blunder.



I'm still scratching my head at how you can be against Obama taking military action in Libya.
derrrr,

If Obama had done a 180 and declared the US will not intervene in Libya, do you suppose Varus would be placated,.. or would he too do a similar 180 to remain always, at all times, diametrically opposed to our pres?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#130varusword75, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 12:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#131 Mar 21 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,

So in essence opposing Obama is the american freedom loving way to go.

I see.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#132 Mar 21 2011 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Elinda wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,

So in essence opposing Obama is the american freedom loving way to go.

I see.


That pretty much says it all. Varus is literally his own party of no Smiley: nod
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#133 Mar 21 2011 at 1:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Meanwhile, in Yemen, Al Jazeera is reporting that 60% of the army had defected and there are 'rebel' tanks at demonstrations now protecting the protesters.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Mar 21 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Meanwhile, in Yemen, Al Jazeera is reporting that 60% of the army had defected and there are 'rebel' tanks at demonstrations now protecting the protesters.
That's pretty cool but also speaks pretty strongly to the fitness of Gadhafi as the leader of Libya.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#135varusword75, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 1:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#136varusword75, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 1:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#137 Mar 21 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
That pretty much says it all. Varus is literally his own party of no


No more taxes.

No more capitulation to radical muslims.

No more funding welfare.

No more capitulation to union thugs.

No more impractical greeny energy solutions.


You're right I am the party of no. I say yesno to freedom and yesno to personal choices and responsibilities.



You say no to peeps to be free to be Muslim, or Jewish or Hindi or Atheist, or *** or Female. You say no to peeps to be free to organize on their own behalf. You say no to peeps to be free to breath clean air or drink clean water that has been unpolluted by others.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#138 Mar 21 2011 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Meanwhile, in Yemen, Al Jazeera is reporting that 60% of the army had defected and there are 'rebel' tanks at demonstrations now protecting the protesters.
That's pretty cool but also speaks pretty strongly to the fitness of Gadhafi as the leader of Libya.

I'm not sure if I'm not following you or you're not following me. A significant portion of the Yemeni army (in Yemen, natch) is defecting after last week's protests in which Yemeni snipers fired upon demonstrators, killing at least forty.

Supposedly several commanders (including at least one armored division) have defected, which are the tanks now protecting the demonstrations.
Al Jazeera wrote:
Following a wave of defections, Mohammad Nasser Ali, Yemen's defence minister, appeared on state television on Monday maintaining that the army still backed Saleh.
[...]
But in the streets of Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, rival tanks were ranged against each other after three senior army commanders announced that they backed the protesters.
[...]
Earlier Major General Ali Mohsen Saleh, the head of the north western military zone and the head of the first armoured division, announced his support for the protesters.

Brigadier Hameed Al Koshebi, the head of brigade 310 in the Omran area, Brigadier Mohammed Ali Mohsen, who heads the eastern division, Brigadier Nasser Eljahori, the head of brigade 121, and General Ali Abdullaha Aliewa, an adviser to the Yemeni supreme leader of the army also deserted the president.


Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#139varusword75, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 1:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#140 Mar 21 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Meanwhile, in Yemen, Al Jazeera is reporting that 60% of the army had defected and there are 'rebel' tanks at demonstrations now protecting the protesters.
That's pretty cool but also speaks pretty strongly to the fitness of Gadhafi as the leader of Libya.

I'm not sure if I'm not following you or you're not following me. A significant portion of the Yemeni army (in Yemen, natch) is defecting after last week's protests in which Yemeni snipers fired upon demonstrators, killing at least forty.

Supposedly several commanders (including at least one armored division) have defected, which are the tanks now protecting the demonstrations.
Al Jazeera wrote:
Following a wave of defections, Mohammad Nasser Ali, Yemen's defence minister, appeared on state television on Monday maintaining that the army still backed Saleh.
[...]
But in the streets of Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, rival tanks were ranged against each other after three senior army commanders announced that they backed the protesters.
[...]
Earlier Major General Ali Mohsen Saleh, the head of the north western military zone and the head of the first armoured division, announced his support for the protesters.

Brigadier Hameed Al Koshebi, the head of brigade 310 in the Omran area, Brigadier Mohammed Ali Mohsen, who heads the eastern division, Brigadier Nasser Eljahori, the head of brigade 121, and General Ali Abdullaha Aliewa, an adviser to the Yemeni supreme leader of the army also deserted the president.


Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:55pm by Jophiel
No, or, yes. I had read your other post as saying that there was a report, out of Yeman, that the Libyan army was defecting...... take it from there. My bad.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#141 Mar 21 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Is this where you start talking about Obama's unilateral decision to resolve this?

Commander-in-Chief
War Powers Resolution



Hi.

I'm just trying to figure out how your link helps in proving that Obama has powers to unilaterally, as El Presidente, declare war on Libya without going thru Congress...

You link says,

Quote:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.


Libya wasn't a threat to the US and he didn't go thru congress.

I know he believes that he is allowed to murder and torture people because 'he's the prez' but attacking another country? Doesn't seem right to me (going by your own written rules).

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#142 Mar 21 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
paulsol wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Is this where you start talking about Obama's unilateral decision to resolve this?

Commander-in-Chief
War Powers Resolution



Hi.

I'm just trying to figure out how your link helps in proving that Obama has powers to unilaterally, as El Presidente, declare war on Libya without going thru Congress...

You link says,

Quote:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.


Libya wasn't a threat to the US and he didn't go thru congress.

I know he believes that he is allowed to murder and torture people because 'he's the prez' but attacking another country? Doesn't seem right to me (going by your own written rules).



Err...are we technically "at war"? We Americans get a little tricksy with that word's definition.
#143 Mar 21 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:

Err...are we technically "at war"? We Americans get a little tricksy with that word's definition.


Dropping bombs into, and shooting missiles at another country with the intention of blowing stuff up and killing people....Yeah. I'd pretty much define that as 'war'.

Why? What would you call it?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#144 Mar 21 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
An *** whoopin.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#145 Mar 21 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Hi.

Hiya.
Quote:
I'm just trying to figure out how your link helps in proving that Obama has powers to unilaterally, as El Presidente, declare war on Libya without going thru Congress...

Ok, sure. Glad to help.
Quote:
You link says,
Quote:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

That's true. But had you read the entire thing, you would have seen it also says:
lolwiki wrote:
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

In short, the War Powers Resolution allows the Commander-in-Chief to deploy the military and then notify Congress with the reason. The Commander-in-Chief can only keep these forces active for sixty days without Congressional approval at which point there's a thirty day drawing-down period. It's basically a balance between the president's constitutional authority to command the military and Congress's authority to declare war. In this case, the UN Resolution passed on Thursday night with the forces first deployed into combat over the weekend (before Benghazi fell) while Congress was not in session -- in a perfect world, you would notify Congress first but then the perfect world apparently doesn't have Congress off on the weekends. Presumably, Congress was notified today.

I'm glad I could help.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 4:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Mar 21 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
paulsol wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:

Err...are we technically "at war"? We Americans get a little tricksy with that word's definition.


Dropping bombs into, and shooting missiles at another country with the intention of blowing stuff up and killing people....Yeah. I'd pretty much define that as 'war'.

Why? What would you call it?


A "military action"? The problem is that there have been numerous historical precedents for the President to use military force in a short term and/or limited way without having to get Congressional approval before hand. These have usually been limited to small air strikes on terrorist camps, or to engage take quick action to protect interests and assets around the globe. This action pretty clearly went well beyond that, and frankly well beyond any previously accepted definition of a "no-fly zone".

I suspect that Obama is figuring out how hard it is to stand by his promise not to do anything unilaterally. The reality is that what the US, France, and UK are doing in Libya is the right thing to do (help the rebels defeat Khadaffi), but there's no way to get the UN to support that precise action. So instead of doing things unilaterally (or at least without UN approval), they got a resolution to do one thing (a no-fly zone), and are embarking on an entirely different military mission instead. I'm not sure if that's a better way to get around the UN's general opposition to any sort of firm "pick a side and win" approach to these sorts of situations.

I still maintain that had we (we being any combination of US, France, or UK) taken action 1.5-2 weeks ago, we probably could have allowed the rebels to win with just a no-fly approach *and* could have avoided the perception of overbearing western interference in this affair *and* avoided the inevitable second round of conflict that's going to happen as a result of that. All the rhetoric in the world about how this is the rebel's fight to win or lose doesn't change the fact that now that this level of involvement has been entered into, after having waited long enough for it to be clear that the rebels could not win without it, has erased any doubt that this result of this civil war will be entirely up to the actions of western powers.


IMO, that's going to cause us yet more problems down the line.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Mar 21 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So instead of doing things unilaterally (or at least without UN approval), they got a resolution to do one thing (a no-fly zone)...

Two things: Create/enforce the no-fly zone and prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians or civilian population centers. Blowing up an armored column approaching Benghazi is within their mandate. Coordinating with the rebels to provide air support for a military match-up in the desert would (I expect) be another matter.

Edit: Apparently Obama met with Congressional leaders on Friday about Libya and sent a letter to the Speaker today. Constitutional consent crisis averted!
CBS wrote:
President Obama met with congressional leaders at the White House on Friday to discuss the situation in Libya, and today, he sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner outlining the nature of the operations there.

"Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States," the letter says. Mr. Obama added, "I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action."


Edited, Mar 21st 2011 5:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148paulsol, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 4:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Surely that means that he needs to tell Congress within 48 hours that he has used the Military because the 'US was under attack', not "Oh, by the way, while you guys were lazing around at the weekend, I used our armed forces to attack a country that was of no threat to the US".
#149 Mar 21 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
paulsol wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:

Err...are we technically "at war"? We Americans get a little tricksy with that word's definition.


Dropping bombs into, and shooting missiles at another country with the intention of blowing stuff up and killing people....Yeah. I'd pretty much define that as 'war'.

Why? What would you call it?


Christ you're touchy lately. Smiley: rolleyes
#150 Mar 21 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Surely that means that he needs to tell Congress within 48 hours that he has used the Military because the 'US was under attack'...

Nope, it doesn't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Mar 21 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So instead of doing things unilaterally (or at least without UN approval), they got a resolution to do one thing (a no-fly zone)...

Two things: Create/enforce the no-fly zone and prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians or civilian population centers.


There's some question as to whether the language was intended to allow for attacks on additional forces not related to air operations in order to accomplish that though.

Quote:
Blowing up an armored column approaching Benghazi is within their mandate.


Yet that's exactly what the Arab League is condemning. There's some obvious question as to whether they expected that the additional language to "protect civilians from attack" included blowing up every tank or artillery unit within 30 miles of any city currently held by rebels.

Quote:
Coordinating with the rebels to provide air support for a military match-up in the desert would (I expect) be another matter.


And dropping missiles and bombs onto (non-air) military bases and command and control locations in Tripoli? That would kinda be outside the mandate as well, right?

The point here is that there's some disagreement even on the application of the "protect civilians" language in the resolution, and the actions being taken go well beyond even that anyway. This is not being seen in the Arab world as mere protection of civilians. It's seen (correctly) as western military might being used to defeat Khadaffi and to kill his military forces. I happen to agree that that is what is necessary, but I'm not sure if this method of getting "approval" for the mission was really the right way to go about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (53)