|
Post by Doug on Mar 23, 2011 16:10:25 GMT -5
Doug, I should add: Marines: paid by the Navy, trained by the Army, loved by all 'cause they're fun to watch. Marines took very good care of me in Vietnam. OTOH, we did more deals with the army for swapping materials etc. 'cause the Marines didn't have anything to make life easier that we didn't give them, generally stuff we traded the army for. Of course the Airforce had all the good stuff but they were selfish. We didn't swap from the army or the Air Force we took what we needed. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2011 19:27:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 24, 2011 8:35:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 24, 2011 11:25:28 GMT -5
It's hard to know what kind of people the rebels are. It would seem unlikely that anybody this poorly armed and organized would be or have backing from Mujahideen types that would want to install an extremist theocracy once in power. But in the story written by the New York Times crew recently released by the Libyans, their captors said the rebels were Al Quaeda, and wondered why the U.S. was supporting them. Of course they probably would say that.
Surely the U.S. has some intelligence on who these guys are.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 24, 2011 11:38:49 GMT -5
My understanding is that no one has very good information about Libya or the rebels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2011 11:40:38 GMT -5
It seems like the underlying assumption has to be that leadership simply cannot be any worse than the present. I don't claim to have any knowledge (or opinion) on whether that is true, but the premise seems to be that it would be nearly impossible for the rebels to be more erratic, dangerous or troublesome than the guy who's there now. The danger of the assumption is obvious, so I hope it's based on something solid.
Call it the Idi Amin phonomenon. His supporters COULD warn us that the option is a protracted civil war, and the world says "So what?" If the option might end up being al quaida or some other superstitious fanatics, or some military dude, we might still say "so what"". Ideally, the rebels might find some benign, wise statesmen to take over. Or, superstitious, tribal thugs. But, even that might qualify as progress. If the assumption is wrong, of course, Ghadaffi's reign will be remembered as "the good old days".
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 24, 2011 12:06:41 GMT -5
I think there are very few situations in which we are better off, in the long run, supporting a government that does not have the popular support of its own people.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 24, 2011 14:36:29 GMT -5
NATO is now taking over control of the no fly zone
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 24, 2011 14:36:30 GMT -5
I think there are very few situations in which we are better off, in the long run, supporting a government that does not have the popular support of its own people. Did you check congress's approval rating before writing that?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 24, 2011 14:49:17 GMT -5
If you are going to have a war errr... kinetic military action, then leadership-by-committee is the only way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 24, 2011 14:59:04 GMT -5
As much as the war powers act gives the President the authority to use military force in an emergency, the way it has been used was to put all the political heat on the President and allow Congress to skate on one of the more important things they are required to do. Good idea but poorly implemented. Sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 24, 2011 15:15:48 GMT -5
As much as the war powers act gives the President the authority to use military force in an emergency, the way it has been used was to put all the political heat on the President and allow Congress to skate on one of the more important things they are required to do. Good idea but poorly implemented. Sounds about right. Stolen from Dickt's place: "(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. " So, how does Libya fit into this?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 24, 2011 17:27:38 GMT -5
"So, how does Libya fit into this?"
Or Granada, or the first Gulf War, or Viet Nam or Korea or Kosovo, pretty much anything we have ever done with our military since WWII except Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 24, 2011 18:11:19 GMT -5
Granada was a territory wasn't it? I'm not sure. The 1st, and 2nd had congressional approval. I think Kosovo did too. The others were before the War Powers Act.
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Mar 24, 2011 21:03:21 GMT -5
Let's use our boomerang bomb to get those WMD's.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 25, 2011 16:21:33 GMT -5
Our worries are over. They've put a Canadian general in charge of the NATO operation.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 25, 2011 16:22:12 GMT -5
Now we can blame Canada.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2011 16:56:51 GMT -5
I already did. I was prescient.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Mar 25, 2011 16:58:52 GMT -5
I already did. I was prescient. I was vice prescient. Always saw immorality coming.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2011 17:00:51 GMT -5
Oh, like Don Johnson?
|
|