Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#152 Mar 21 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
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.

But you agree that there was a resolution for more than one thing. Great. That was my point. In fact, the protection of citizens is its own section and comes before the portion declaring a no-fly zone. There's no confusing that these are two separate things.
Quote:
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?

Given that knocking out Libyan communications was Step One? No, probably not outside the mandate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 Mar 21 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Not to mention that enforcing a "no-fly" zone would intimate that Allied planes are going to be the one enforcing it. Therefore taking out any anti-aircraft threat resides within that mandate. Tanks, SAM emplacements, and communication infrastructure would fall within that definition.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#154 Mar 21 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of, and again with the "non-air" military base strikes, anti-aircraft devices don't need to hang around airports.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Mar 21 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.



Back on page one I said :

Quote:
...bombing the airports, AA emplacements, destruction of fuelling, maintainence and base infrastructure and all the other things that that would involve? Eventually you would have US pilots getting shot at and prolly shot down too....All for....What exactly? So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead?



The only thing that surprises me is that anyone ( from gbaji to the Arab league) thought that it would mean anything less.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#156 Mar 21 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


So....let me get this straight. Obama (or any other POTUS) can unilaterally declare war on any country he sees fit, and as long as the Congress is away for the weekend, and as long as he can 'win' in 60 days, then its all good by the Constitution?

FUck! And you guys think thats OK?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#157 Mar 21 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
And you guys think thats OK?

Doesn't keep me up at night nearly as much as it does you :)

Congress doesn't have to be away for the weekend; the fact that Congress was away is why the formal notice arrived today instead of on Saturday. Had military action started today, he could have still said "Go" on the missile strikes and then penned a letter to John & Harry.

Quote:
So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead?

I know, right? If only there was some way we could convince France to blow up those tanks outside Benghazi...

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 7:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Mar 21 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
And you guys think thats OK?

Doesn't keep me up at night nearly as much as it does you :)



Well....I s'pose he is a Democrat, and as such is definately doing it for all the right reasons.

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

#159 Mar 21 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But you agree that there was a resolution for more than one thing. Great. That was my point. In fact, the protection of citizens is its own section and comes before the portion declaring a no-fly zone. There's no confusing that these are two separate things.


Sure. But both are connected to (and justified by) one thing: "protecting civilians". You do understand that the reason for a no-fly zone was to prevent air bombing of civilian populations, right? It isn't an end to itself. I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning" with this line of argument. The "one thing" I was speaking about was the objective of protecting civilians.

Do you see how those acting on the humanitarian desire to limit casualties from air bombings might just think that using massive air strikes to accomplish that sorta defeats the purpose?

Quote:
Quote:
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?

Given that knocking out Libyan communications was Step One? No, probably not outside the mandate.


You're missing the point. I'm not talking about how *I* perceive those things. I'm talking about many of those in the UN and the Arab League to gave a green light to this perceive those things. They very clearly did not have air operations of this nature in mind when they agreed to allow actions to help protect against civilian loss of life.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 5:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Mar 21 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
paulsol wrote:

Quote:
...bombing the airports, AA emplacements, destruction of fuelling, maintainence and base infrastructure and all the other things that that would involve? Eventually you would have US pilots getting shot at and prolly shot down too....All for....What exactly? So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead?



The only thing that surprises me is that anyone ( from gbaji to the Arab league) thought that it would mean anything less.


Don't include me in the list of those who thought anything else. The difference is that I happen to think that they should be engaging at that level. You and I do seem to agree that you either stay all the way out, or you end out all the way in.

My point is that those running the show (US, UK, and France) basically lied to the Arab League and the UN to get authorization to act to "protect civilians" and are using it as a justification to get involved in the conflict in order to try to help the rebels win. They're trying to have their cake and eat it to (help the rebels win while appearing to just be engaged in humanitarian mission), but is anyone really fooled? I don't think so. And judging by the outrage coming out of the Arab League right now, I don't think they've been fooled either.


I think we should have just been honest. Say we don't like Khadaffi, toss support to the rebels to help them end his rule, and stand by that decision. The idea of walking into it backwards by pretending we're just there for humanitarian reasons is stupid IMO. No one believes it, and it wont work. The risk we're running is that we'll end up with a stalemate and even more people will die as a result of our "humanitarian" efforts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Mar 21 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
If I had a been given a penny for every time I've talked about how its the perception of events that is important, and not the intentions, and been knocked back on this board, (especially by Gbaji) i would be able to go out for a quiet dinner on my own at a mediocre sort of restaurant in an average part of town.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#162 Mar 21 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
You and I do seem to agree that you either stay all the way out, or you end out all the way in.



Nope.


Similar conclusions possibly.

Totally different thought processes on how we get there tho'.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#163 Mar 21 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
paulsol wrote:
If I had a been given a penny for every time I've talked about how its the perception of events that is important, and not the intentions, and been knocked back on this board, (especially by Gbaji) i would be able to go out for a quiet dinner on my own at a mediocre sort of restaurant in an average part of town.


Your own persecution complex aside, I've been incredibly consistent in my assertion that the claim to just be about helping protect civilians is a blatant lie and is being used to assert military action in support of the rebels. I've been arguing all along that the choice to deceive the UN and Arab league to green light these attacks will likely be seen more negatively than had they simply acted unilaterally (or at least without the UN and League support).

I've stated several times my amazement that anyone might think they'd get away with this just by calling it something else. I don't think they will. In fact, I think it'll hurt us more in the long run than if we'd just come out directly saying we're going to help the rebels win the war and then followed through with that.

It would have at least been honest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Mar 21 2011 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning"...

Who's "winning"? You were wrong and I corrected you. Be gracious about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#165 Mar 21 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning"...

Who's "winning"? You were wrong and I corrected you. Be gracious about it.


Ah yes. I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

That about it? I mean, I said that the resolution did one thing, but (hur hur!) there was... wait for it... more than one thing in the resolution! Hahaha. UR Dumb!

Really? That's your sole contribution? You'll just ignore the fairly salient point that the folks who agreed to the resolution clearly did not think that it included things like bombing every Khdaffi held military location in the country, and obliterating lines of tanks driving down a road. You'll ignore a prediction that this will cause some serious political fallout? That's less important to you than pointing out that I said that the resolution did "one thing"?


Sure looks to me like you view this like you're scoring points on some board somewhere by spotting an inaccuracy in my post. Um... Grats I guess? Me? I'd rather be right about what I'm saying even if I'm wrong about how I say it than the other way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Mar 21 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

No, I said "gracious". Throwing a little multi-paragraph hissy fit like a six year old who has just been corrected isn't "gracious". I mean, it's par for the course with you but it isn't gracious.

When your little dire predictions are predicated on an understanding of the resolution, I don't think that correcting you is really so wrong but then I'm not you. Maybe I'll buy both you and Paulsol matching crosses for Easter :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167paulsol, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 7:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Voted for : U.S., Britain, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa.
#168 Mar 21 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Mar 21 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

No, I said "gracious".


I should be gracious about you obsessing on word choice while ignoring post content and meaning? Why?


Quote:
When your little dire predictions are predicated on an understanding of the resolution, I don't think that correcting you is really so wrong but then I'm not you.


Correcting me about what though? Seriously Joph. Your "correction" doesn't change anything about what I was saying. It's pure semantic nit picking. The broader point, that what was sold to the UN and Arab league as a purely protective measure has been used to launch massive offensive air strikes and that this might just be looked on unkindly by those aforementioned groups, still kinda stands unchanged.

Whether they agreed to "one thing" or "more than one thing" in the resolution doesn't change the fact that they absolutely did not sign on to a "bomb the **** out of Khadaffi's troops" resolution.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Mar 21 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
paulsol wrote:
Take out the US...

For : 5% of the worlds pop.

Against : 40% of th3e worlds pop.

Surely, even through your haze of self-righteous outrage, you recognize that abstention is not the same as opposition?
#171 Mar 21 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.


You mistake me for someone who actually opposes the "bomb the **** out of Khdaffi's troops" approach. I just think it's a mistake to go about it in such a dishonest and underhanded manner.

We all know where this will have to lead us. Better to have picked a desired end result and worked towards that than the mealy-mouthed approach being used. As I've said before, we run the risk of starting this, then trying to appease the folks we lied to in the UN resolution, and end out with some kind of stalemated disaster of an eternally maintained civil war in Libya as a result. Or. We end up backing off and looking like idiots. Or, we end up doing what we should have done on day one and telling the UN and Arab league to shove it and fully backing the rebels.


We're playing a dangerous game with this. What happens if the rebels can't win with us just providing air support? What happens if we have to back off that support to just a "real" no-fly zone (no bombing) once the rebels are no longer backed up in a corner? How does that finish the war? How many more people will die because we've even played lip service to the goal of just "protecting civilians" instead of "winning the war". I just think that this will play out badly, and will end badly, and take a really long time getting there.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Mar 21 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.


You mistake me for someone who actually opposes the "bomb the **** out of Khdaffi's troops" approach.

It's a fair trade, since you mistook him for someone who was actually addressing you with that post.
#173 Mar 21 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I should be gracious about you obsessing on word choice while ignoring post content and meaning? Why?

lol

ok
Quote:
You mistake me for someone who actually opposes...

You mistake me for someone who was directing that at you and not at Paulsol who was citing who voted for and who abstained.

I corrected you, Gbaji!! Are you going to be okay?? Do you need a glass of water or anything? A teddy bear?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Mar 21 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Double

Edited, Mar 22nd 2011 2:10am by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#175 Mar 21 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Majivo wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Take out the US...

For : 5% of the worlds pop.

Against : 40% of th3e worlds pop.

Surely, even through your haze of self-righteous outrage, you recognize that abstention is not the same as opposition?



My outrage is directed at anyone who thinks that peace can be obtained by starting wars.

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

#176 Mar 21 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
paulsol wrote:
Majivo wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Take out the US...

For : 5% of the worlds pop.

Against : 40% of th3e worlds pop.

Surely, even through your haze of self-righteous outrage, you recognize that abstention is not the same as opposition?



My outrage is directed at anyone who thinks that peace can be obtained by starting wars.

cUnt.
What would you prefer? A strongly worded letter?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (69)