Big can of whupass has just been opened on Ghadafi

[audtatious]

Of course not. it took 17 before the Security Counsel came to the final final final warning. Which makes me wonder why the UN is acting so fast this time?



I'm not making points for any real purpose other than annoying those who constantly bashed Bush throughout his 8 years. It's amazingly different how all but a few Democrats feel about this action under Obama. Wonder when Kerry is going to step up against this "war".

[IBCoupe]

I think the circumstances betray your attempts at comparison.

[audtatious]

I think any circumstance opens the door for reaching and crying foul in today's political environment.

[IBCoupe]

A fair point.

And an update: I found the legal justification. Regarding the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Wikipedia says,

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.

[IBCoupe]

Update x2 - maybe not. Still needs a "constitutional and legislative authority.". I'll keep my eye out for other theories. Could be that Court interpretation got us the 60-day thing, but I'm not sure.

[audtatious]

Maybe. I'm not even all too concerned or focused on it. Most of us are only harping on his actions because of how he harped against the evil Republicans and their leader GWB. The main reason I'm against the action in Libya is due to the same and how GWB was dragged through the mud via liberals for Iraq/Afgn. IMO, we should close our borders down and let other countries kill themselves off if that is what they choose. Let the UN deal with things themselves, using other countries resources than our own.

[R/T Hemi]

Since becoming President he has already ordered strikes in the following countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Kenya, Algeria, and Libya

He's a warmonger

Yeah, once you get that big war machine a movin' it's pretty hard to stop it. Especially with so many politicians jerking the steering wheel. It's a wonder we haven't invaded Arizona or some other alien country.

[audtatious]

Just think, with each missile fired we are opening up additional employment opportunities with a Gov contractor. Libya is going to single-handedly save the US from the brink of economic collapse

[R/T Hemi]

Want to bet at least half of the parts in them aren't from China?

[Fenris]

I think that at the moment we are just tying up loose ends in the world. We must be getting ready for something big as a country.

1. Afghanistan?
Backed the wrong side in '88, started a hot bed for terrorists.

2. Iraq?
"Daddy" AKA GB Sr. started some action there but didn't finish the job in '91 so back we go.

3. Libya?
Missiles shot by Regan (Republican) in '86 didn't do the job, so back we go.

4. ?
My guess is North Korea, maybe Vietnam.

Or, how about, "angry brown people being mistreated in arid locales - please bring missiles."

That right there, is some USA national pride. We cant make a car worth a damn anymore, our healthcare system isnt that great. And people applying for immigration has hit an all time low.
But DAMN can we blow s*** up.
Our nation was forged from violence, when you boil it all down, its one of the few things were good at. But without a world war every now and then, we may have to get involved in our own.

The US NEEDS a large scale armed conflict to take part in about every 10-20 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... operations
You will be reading for a while.

[Fenris]

Want to bet at least half of the parts in them aren't from China?

The Tomahawks are made by Raytheon right here in the US Fricken A

Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) is a major American military contractor and industrial corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in weapons and military and commercial electronics. It was previously involved in corporate and special-mission aircraft until early 2007. Raytheon is the world's largest producer of guided missiles.[2]

Established in 1922, the company reincorporated in 1928 and adopted its present name in 1959. The company has around 72,000 employees worldwide and annual revenues of approximately US$25 billion. More than 90% of Raytheon's revenues were obtained from military contracts and, as of 2007, it was the fifth-largest military contractor in the world,[3] and is the fourth largest defense contractor in the United States by revenue.

Raytheon Headquarters was moved from Lexington, Massachusetts to Waltham, Massachusetts on October 27, 2003.[4] The company was previously headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts from 1922–1928, Newton, Massachusetts from 1928–1941, Waltham from 1941–1961, Lexington from 1961–2003, and back to Waltham from 2003 onwards

And since those missile orders will be rolling in... maybe the can hire me to be an IT guy there rather than for a Finance Company...

[audtatious]

2. Iraq?
"Daddy" AKA GB Sr. started some action there but didn't finish the job in '91 so back we go.

Not sure he was allowed to based upon the action being joint with the UN? I watched it unfold and happen and agree we should have rolled through Baghdad back then.

3. Libya?
Missiles shot by Regan (Republican) in '86 didn't do the job, so back we go.

You forgot Clinton's failure as well.

[Fenris]

True true

[IBCoupe]

I think I figured out the legality. Fuller explanation to come when I have a legitimate keyboard to work with.

Stupid iPod.

[R/T Hemi]

...


Anyhow, this is now. And we've got a POTUS who has no idea what he's doing... Since when does the UN dictate what we do? Who FUNDS the bulk of the UN? Who's the enemy? What's the objective of the rebels? Who's their leader? What are they upset about? And how does it affect me, the average US citizen?

I'll address part one of that paragraph. We've never been blessed with a president with a crystal ball, so we really can't expect one who can see beyond the horizon. However, Obama is very clear about what he's going to do. He's defined the extent of our commitment, and the end of our commitment to this conflict. That's the first time this century we've had a POTUS who saw both ends of the situation at the same time. A step up in my opinion. Following the lead of the UN is an obligation that comes with membership.

[IBCoupe]

As promised, I'll walk through the law. If you find something online that completely obliterates that, I'll be perfectly open to acknowledging it. I'm basing this only on the text of the Statute.

The pertinent portion of the first sentence of 22 U.S.C. § 287d reads:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces... to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.

So, from what I can tell of Articles 42 and 43 are this: when the UN determines that nonmilitary options (explored through Article 41) have failed, they can decide to go with a military intervention, using Article 42. Article 43 describes the agreements, which are used to negotiate with UN members the terms of their assistance.

So, then we see the next part of the statute:

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements...

This here says that Congressional approval is not required for things pursuant from a UN Article 42 directives and Article 43 (presumably) agreements.

So now we get to the catch that initially tripped me up:

Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d-1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces... and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

And that's where I pay a lot of attention to the last line. It doesn't say in Article 42 directives. It's clearly referring to the Article 43 agreements, except for those that deal with noncombat efforts, as per 22 U.S.C. § 287d-1.

And so then I look to the UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which states (beyond the posturing, that is, and defining of terms):

8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights...

So the question is (and I don't have the answer to it), did President Obama notify the Secretaries-General of the UN and Arab League? If he did, then he's arguably not acting pursuant to a special agreement, he's just acting upon an Article 42 resolution.

Or, maybe the easier way: did the UN establish a special agreement with the US for this particular action?

[mattblancarte]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, Z. I've been incredibly busy lately.

And, again, we are intervening in another country without a clue as to the specific outcome that should be best for the country.

I think the outcome they were looking for was a less violent and deadly scenario for innocent Libyan civilians.

The no-fly zone has held up and collateral damage from all air sorties has been minimal. NATO is now in control, and it's worth noting that even Turkey is backing the effort. NATO consists of 28 countries, of course.

Is it now the official policy of the US and the UN and Western countries that we should encourage and actively support rebels wherever we think the ruler is not right for that country? And take specific action against another sovereign nation? Violate their borders? Kill their current soldiers and air force (regardless of whether they obey a despot)?

No, not necessarily. It can be argued that it has been "unofficial" policy for many decades, though.

The international concern was the excessive use of deadly force by the Col. He was using war machines to quell the uprising. "That's too harsh so no more air dominance for you," said the UN.

If it were me over there, I would hope that NATO enforced a no-fly zone. It would ensure my wacky leader couldn't bomb me because I disagreed with him.

And, why did the US and the UN not b0mb Iranian targets during last years "rebellion" over there?

I don't remember any civilians being bombed during that uprising.

Are we becoming a Western bully ... only targeting the weaker countries that we choose too?

This question doesn't have much relevance in this scenario, as we acted alongside the leading international community.

However, yes. We are a western bully. Evidence of that can be found a few thousand miles east of Libya, in the belly of the fertile crescent.

Do we care about the Libyan population supposedly being hurt by Gaddhafi?

If so, why did not not intervene in the far-worse crackdown in Bahrain a few weeks ago? Was it because we don't think that the ruler there is not a despot? Wow!!

Yes. We are part of an international community and when it acts, it serves our interests to act alongside in the pursuit of justice.

We didn't act on Bahrain because there was no resolution passed within the UN for a no-fly zone or something similar to what we were able to do in Libya.

It would have been nice if our armies could have been mobilized for that purpose instead of their current roles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Was it because we don't think that the ruler there is not a despot? Wow!!

Surely not.

The ethics of our intervention and the absurd decision making here have me quite concerned ...

I don't really see much absurdity in what's been going on, other than the Col. launching air strikes on dissidents.

[AZhitman]

Obama is very clear about what he's going to do. He's defined the extent of our commitment, and the end of our commitment to this conflict.

No.

Not true.

He's said things like "...days, not weeks...". No objective. No identification of the "enemy". No clear indication of "WDWP" (if you have to ask, you don't understand military affairs very well). No identification of our allies. No stated reason (other than humanitarian, which is weak). And most of all, in a speech yesterday, he left the door open to Ghadafi staying in power.

No, he hasn't defined s***. And none of that brings me joy. I wish, in this case, that you were spot-on. You're not.

[AZhitman]

We didn't act on Bahrain because there was no resolution passed within the UN for a no-fly zone

So, the UN is our Mama now?

Great.

Nice that we spared all those Libyans. The Sudanese and Bahrainis and Congolese must REALLY love us now.

...not to mention all the women suffering in other countries with misogynistic practices (stoning, genital mutilation, honor killing, beatings, etc.) How about some missiles for their defense?

Screw the UN. We pay the bulk of the tab, do the bulk of the work, take all the international heat and get none of the benefit.

[mattblancarte]

So the question is (and I don't have the answer to it), did President Obama notify the Secretaries-General of the UN and Arab League? If he did, then he's arguably not acting pursuant to a special agreement, he's just acting upon an Article 42 resolution.

Or, maybe the easier way: did the UN establish a special agreement with the US for this particular action?

I'm not even sure if what has been done can be declared an act of war, but I believe the answer to both queries in the first sentence is yes.

Members of the Security Counsel voted unanimously to enforce the no-fly zone, and I'm pretty sure the Arab League was in full support.

It's also worth noting that our membership to NATO gives us some authority, as all of NATO is participating.

[mattblancarte]

So, the UN is our Mama now?

Great.

Nice that we spared all those Libyans. The Sudanese and Bahrainis and Congolese must REALLY love us now.

...not to mention all the women suffering in other countries with misogynistic practices (stoning, genital mutilation, honor killing, beatings, etc.) How about some missiles for their defense?

Screw the UN. We pay the bulk of the tab, do the bulk of the work, take all the international heat and get none of the benefit.

Nah, the Security Counsel is more like a group of brothers and sisters. Everyone in the group gets their say.

Without a doubt there's a pecking order. We're normally at the top, thankfully.

It's unrealistic to think that the UN is going to perform with 100% efficiency and stop all atrocities. Most actions are, unfortunately, crammed to the brim with ulterior motives. Libya is rich with oil. There is money at stake.

I understand what you're saying though. The UN is very "pick-and-choose" when it comes to forceful action.

To be honest, I'm not exactly thrilled that we spent $100 million or something sending cruise missiles into Libya. However, it can be argued that collateral damage has been minuscule in comparison to our other campaigns in progress.

The UN is about as good as it gets to keeping superpowers from bombing the crap out of each other. As much as it screws up, the UN serves its purpose well by keeping everyone at the table IMHO.

A few billion per year is worth it for international diplomacy. We spend more than 3x that every month in our current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[IBCoupe]

Kinda like what Churchill said about Democracy. The UN is the worst form of international diplomacy, except for all the others.

[R/T Hemi]

We didn't act on Bahrain because there was no resolution passed within the UN for a no-fly zone

So, the UN is our Mama now?

Great.

Nice that we spared all those Libyans. The Sudanese and Bahrainis and Congolese must REALLY love us now.

...not to mention all the women suffering in other countries with misogynistic practices (stoning, genital mutilation, honor killing, beatings, etc.) How about some missiles for their defense?

Screw the UN. We pay the bulk of the tab, do the bulk of the work, take all the international heat and get none of the benefit.

Come here my friend. Sit down and open a beer. I've got a story to tell you. It's about a man named Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, AKA George Santayana.
George was born in Spain, Madrid to be exact about the time the US was fighting a civil war. He was considered a Pragmatist by many. I'd like to offer two quotes if I may that perhaps will have you rethink part of your mindset in these matters.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." So very obvious in it's thrust. War is as much a part of life as beaver dreams are. When we face this as inevitable, then we look to a leader who won't bog us down in a sea of muddy logic and false goals. We've had enough of that.

So why the UN? Let's ask George. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remember the faults of the League of Nations with respect to Axis aggression? The League lacked the means to deal with it. Not that the UN could have necessarily solved the problem, but clearly, the League lacked the ability to enforce resolutions, sanctions and directives. The UN has those powers. Right or Wrong, it's an effort to resolve political problems in our world short of a hot war. The UN dictates that Libya must not use military force on innocent civilians, the world (part of it anyway) responded. That's far more responsible than a country unilaterally attacking and removing a dictator.

I've got more beer and more lefty logic here if you've got the time.

[AZhitman]

The UN dictates that Libya must not use military force on innocent civilians, the world (part of it anyway) responded. That's far more responsible than a country unilaterally attacking and removing a dictator.

Perhaps Old George could brief you on some history, circa 1989-91.

Iraq used military force on innocent civilians.

Were you not aware of that, or are you ok with the UN being our Mama too?

I'm only good for one beer (I'm a lightweight)... and the rest of the point I was making went unnoticed.

[R/T Hemi]

The UN dictates that Libya must not use military force on innocent civilians, the world (part of it anyway) responded. That's far more responsible than a country unilaterally attacking and removing a dictator.

Perhaps Old George could brief you on some history, circa 1989-91.

Iraq used military force on innocent civilians.

And, if memory serves me, the US under Poppa Bush, led an international force to remove Iraq from occupied Kuwait. I seem to remember the country being 99% behind the use of the military for that event, not to mention the world backing it. When we act under a UN resolution, the world seems to bless our actions, when we act, as we did in Iraq II under GWB, unilaterally, the world pretty much condemned us.

[AZhitman]

Not my point. I'm not universally disagreeing with you here. Your focus seems to be on the party, not the circumstances.

You said: The UN dictates that Libya must not use military force on innocent civilians.

And again, I say: Iraq used military force on innocent civilians.

[R/T Hemi]

Then I'm missing your point. Yes, Iraq did. And yes, the UN authorized the use of force to stop it. I suppose many countries have used their military against innocent people, and have also gotten away with it. That shouldn't be seen as a failure of the UN should it? Should we disband the police departments because they don't catch all the crooks?

[AZhitman]

Yes, Iraq did. And yes, the UN authorized the use of force to stop it.

That's all. I wasn't pointing that out necessarily as a shortcoming of the UN. Rather, I was pointing it out as a mitigating argument to counter your overarching, black-and-white critique of Iraq '91.

They are, in those regards, as you admitted above, markedly similar. That's all. So, condemning one should be a condemnation of both. Supporting one should equate to support of both.

[szh]

Perhaps Old George could brief you on some history, circa 1989-91.

Iraq used military force on innocent civilians.

And, if memory serves me, the US under Poppa Bush, led an international force to remove Iraq from occupied Kuwait. I seem to remember the country being 99% behind the use of the military for that event, not to mention the world backing it. When we act under a UN resolution, the world seems to bless our actions, when we act, as we did in Iraq II under GWB, unilaterally, the world pretty much condemned us.

Uh, no, not quite accurate!

When Iraq took their air attacks and chemical warfare to the Kurds - well before 1991 - the world (the UN) and the US did nothing. Because we were too busy supporting Iraq fighting the Iranians then? And were too dependent on the oil that Iraq sold us and the Europeans?

The 1991 war only happened when Iraq went into Kuwait. And that 1991 invasion, by the way, could have been construed by Saddam Hussain as agreed to by the US (by our Ambassador when she met with him shortly prior to the event). Have we noticed that she never gets mentioned in the media and US reports since then?

Z

[R/T Hemi]

I've said it several times in other contexts herein. One of my comments centered on the current administration's caution in playing into the Libyan situation. We (the US) have upheld our responsibility as a member of the UN, nothing more. We've acted responsibility in the matter. Our actions were congruent with world opinion and UN policies. We're not in a war here, instead, we're part of an international force designed to protect civilians.

The problem is that by protecting civilians in this matter, we're playing into the rebel's hand. And, as we've discussed, we know nothing of these rebels, what they stand for, what they offer or where they are headed should they win. That scares me. Will this resolve a problem, or create a bigger one.

So the choice becomes one of choosing the lesser of two evils. Letting innocent civilians die, or playing into the rebels hand. But, the UN has spoken, and we've upheld our obligation in this matter.