|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 18, 2011 18:51:13 GMT -5
Heard there's some question, from Dennis Kucinich as to whether Obama can go to war without congressional approval, which he hasn't asked for and congress is on vacation again. Something about a law they passed to keep Bush from doing it again. Anybody know about that?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 18, 2011 18:55:08 GMT -5
What law was passed to keep Bush from doing anything again?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 18, 2011 21:33:40 GMT -5
Presidential term limits?
Hasn't there been no formal Congressional declaration of war since WWII?
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 18, 2011 21:38:35 GMT -5
I am astounded the Russians and Chinese did not veto this.
I would agree with Chesapeake. While Qaddafi started out murdering his fellow citizens, (at least, that's what we all heard. Not supporting him, or saying he didn't, but I don't know,) he now has a civil war. And his government is the legally recognized government.
I think the Arab league is hoping to hold him out to dry to show their citizens that they are serious about democracy. As long as it's elsewhere.
Be interesting to see how far "intervention" goes. Qaddafi can probably still flatten the opposition without planes. Will we start blowing up his ground forces? Get's interesting fast.
J, he's a hopeless lunatic. But who gets to decide who gets to run a country? If we start going through every idiot in Africa, we have not enough resources or willpower to do that. And we are going to do nothing about the bigger idiots we dislike, because it would be too hard. Even Qaddafi has a pretty well armed military - money will buy that.
|
|
|
Post by j on Mar 18, 2011 21:41:28 GMT -5
I disagree. I think it's fair to say that his government has lost whatever legitimacy it had one month ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 21:44:11 GMT -5
Really? Kurdistan didn't become an issue until after the invasion. I recall the invasion on Iraq to be centered on smoked guns and WMDs—talks of human rights were spun by the PR machine only after the whole "mission accomplished" thing. And, biggest difference—the UN wasn't even ALLOWED to express a similar opinion on the Iraqi situation. The inspections were hurried along/hushed up, and the air strikes were begun unilaterally. Didn't Chesapeake mean the First Gulf War? That's how I read it, anyhow. And that was a UN authorized coalition force, following UN authorized sanctions beginning with...yep, naval blockades. And while the Arab League opposed external involvement, the Saudis funded nearly 1/2 of the conflict.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 18, 2011 21:47:02 GMT -5
Really? Kurdistan didn't become an issue until after the invasion. I recall the invasion on Iraq to be centered on smoked guns and WMDs—talks of human rights were spun by the PR machine only after the whole "mission accomplished" thing. And, biggest difference—the UN wasn't even ALLOWED to express a similar opinion on the Iraqi situation. The inspections were hurried along/hushed up, and the air strikes were begun unilaterally. Didn't Chesapeake mean the First Gulf War? That's how I read it, anyhow. And that was a UN authorized coalition force, following UN authorized sanctions beginning with...yep, naval blockades. And while the Arab League opposed external involvement, the Saudis funded nearly 1/2 of the conflict. And what did we get for playing so nice with others? Osama gets his panties in a wad about our guys using Saudi soil for some of their ops and starts, what? alQueda, that's what.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 18, 2011 21:55:35 GMT -5
There are some commonalities between the Bin Laden and the Qaddafi situation. Both are/were nuts. Both are/were contained. For the latter reason, it'd be a mistake to intervene at this point. Dictators don't have friends with other nations or organizations. That is because, by definition, they are dictators. Intervene, and suddenly they have them. I say stay out.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Mar 18, 2011 23:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Mar 18, 2011 23:03:05 GMT -5
And if you guys would listen to the news, as reported today, our (USofA) involvment will be limited to Awac intel and air bourne refueling.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 18, 2011 23:58:53 GMT -5
Which is good. US doesn't take much Libyan oil. Let the Europeans take the lead.
J, he's a dick. If the opposition had won and hung him like Mussolini from a lamppost, I would have said great. Same with Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban. How are those experiments going? Pretty mixed.
And how about the Chinese government, for Tienanmen square. And the Russians for Chechnya. How about the Sudan, or the Belgian Congo, or South Africa for many, many years? List goes on.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 19, 2011 6:20:12 GMT -5
And if you guys would listen to the news, as reported today, our (USofA) involvment will be limited to Awac intel and air bourne refueling. Mike Is it? It looks like it's settled - Britain, France & the US have decided to take military action with backing from the UN and the Arab League. The US will send no ground troups, but will help shape the front with remote missiles. Obama said our involvement will be limited to "days, not weeks." Abstaining from the UN vote were Russia, China, India, Germany & Brazil. (To me that looks like a list of countries that have concluded that wars in the Middle East are economically no-win situations.)
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 19, 2011 6:48:44 GMT -5
So now we will be in 3 wars we shouldn't be in.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 19, 2011 7:07:15 GMT -5
So now we will be in 3 wars we shouldn't be in. Yeah and the stated rationale, broken U.N. resolutions, is the same Bush used for Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 19, 2011 7:39:40 GMT -5
When you are in a deeeeeeeep hole keep digging.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 19, 2011 7:53:15 GMT -5
There are some commonalities between the Bin Laden and the Qaddafi situation. Both are/were nuts. Both are/were contained. For the latter reason, it'd be a mistake to intervene at this point. Dictators don't have friends with other nations or organizations. That is because, by definition, they are dictators. Intervene, and suddenly they have them. I say stay out. I'm with the Idiot. Stay out. But I am in favor of supplying the rebels (if somebody in the intelligence apparatus can determine if they are worth supporting) with supplies and equipment to help level the playing field. But I'm not in favor of our military taking agressive actions (bombing the place). The world doesn't need more images of American planes blowing things up in a foreign land.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 19, 2011 8:35:57 GMT -5
Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with the UN spanking this guy. I have no problem with them rallying a broad base of support and consensus about spanking this guy; I have no problem with them organizing the military action. I likewise have no problem with team America coming out with strong verbal support and pats on the back for the UN. I have real misgivings about us doing any of the heavy lifting, though. Let's let some other g9 nation take the point, and get the check, on this one. We can leave the tip. Perfect. I'd add that the fact that it is endorsed by the Arab League and coming from the UN, two entities that have been frozen in inaction so many times before, just warms the cockles of my heart. I have no romantic notions about this; I don't believe, for example, that the Arab League and the UN have suddenly found elusive consensus to prevent the genocide they've let happen so many times before. This is about the oil supply, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. The fact that China abstained speaks volumes about how deeply money has drawn them into the world community. And a genocide might just be prevented, as a little side benefit of stabilizing the oil supply. Now if we can just serve our role as a member of the UN and nothing more... Tim
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 19, 2011 10:03:07 GMT -5
I'll believe the U.N. is actually going to do something about it when I see British and France planes bombing Qadaffi and the U.S. staying away. France has announced they have launched military attacks on Libya.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 19, 2011 10:09:24 GMT -5
I'll believe the U.N. is actually going to do something about it when I see British and France planes bombing Qadaffi and the U.S. staying away. France has announced they have launched military attacks on Libya. So they're taking him out in spite of his fake to the left? I was wondering if they were going to fall for that "cease fire" bullshit. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 19, 2011 14:24:00 GMT -5
It's gratifying that this is truly international. The Danes, Norwegians and Canadians are sending planes. The Italians are providing a base. That's how an effort of this sort should be handled.
|
|