DC Tom Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yeah, that's really what I've been waiting for someone smart to comment on. What exactly triggers an end to this process? Are we: A) Waiting for the insurgents to get tired of playing revolution and go home? B) Waiting for Col G to press a reset button and promise not to bomb anyone else? C) Hoping to facilitate the always popular stalemate and split Libya in two; one side with a government and the other as basically lawless tribal lands? That always seems to work out well the US. D) Hoping the insurgents eventually kill Col G and win, but just hoping to make that be as long and destructive process as possible? And I'm still not real clear on where the support is for this policy -- but it sure is funny to watch all the Obamaphiles temper their disdain for war after screaming their heads off about it for the past 8 years. I believe the goal is to let the civil war linger on for as long as it takes for Qadaffi to realize that he's lost "the legitimate right to rule" and decide all on his own to go into exile in Argentina. But really...if the goal isn't to depose Qadaffi...exactly what the !@#$ happens when the insurgents start to close on Tripoli? Do we withdraw air support, since we're not supporting the removal of Qadaffi? It really seems to me like the whole premise of this is "don't take sides, so we don't have to call it a war, while simultaneous bombing the **** out of one side, even though we're not taking sides, never mind that we only took action after Qadaffi was about to win...but we're completely neutral, honestly." In the name of humanitarianism, of course...even though the single most inhumane course of action is to prolong the war. The West is going to end up tearing the country apart simply because they don't want Qadaffi in power, yet don't have the stones to remove him. p.s. Just for Dexter's benefit, didn't Saddam kill far more civilians than Gaddafi ever did, and so wasn't the Iraq war basically a humanitarian mission too? That George Bush sure was dreamy! Saddam killed more people than Libya ever HAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I believe the goal is to let the civil war linger on for as long as it takes for Qadaffi to realize that he's lost "the legitimate right to rule" and decide all on his own to go into exile in Argentina. But really...if the goal isn't to depose Qadaffi...exactly what the !@#$ happens when the insurgents start to close on Tripoli? Do we withdraw air support, since we're not supporting the removal of Qadaffi? It really seems to me like the whole premise of this is "don't take sides, so we don't have to call it a war, while simultaneous bombing the **** out of one side, even though we're not taking sides, never mind that we only took action after Qadaffi was about to win...but we're completely neutral, honestly." In the name of humanitarianism, of course...even though the single most inhumane course of action is to prolong the war. If I were Qadaffi and someone said. "Listen Colonel Muttmar, take several million dollars and move to a villa in the Swiss Alps." My response would be "you mean I can live in a mansion in Switzerland and for once in 60 years get this !@#$ing sand out of my asscrack? I'll be packed in 20 minutes!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I believe the goal is to let the civil war linger on for as long as it takes for Qadaffi to realize that he's lost "the legitimate right to rule" and decide all on his own to go into exile in Argentina. But really...if the goal isn't to depose Qadaffi...exactly what the !@#$ happens when the insurgents start to close on Tripoli? Do we withdraw air support, since we're not supporting the removal of Qadaffi? It really seems to me like the whole premise of this is "don't take sides, so we don't have to call it a war, while simultaneous bombing the **** out of one side, even though we're not taking sides, never mind that we only took action after Qaddafi was about to win...but we're completely neutral, honestly." In the name of humanitarianism, of course...even though the single most inhumane course of action is to prolong the war. The West is going to end up tearing the country apart simply because they don't want Qadaffi in power, yet don't have the stones to remove him. Saddam killed more people than Libya ever HAD. The west engages in farce - they'd like to accidentally on purpose kill Qaddafi while leaving plausible deniability or implausible deniability , as long as they have a fig leaf to hide behind- To me this violates our Constitution, the U.N.'s charter and NATO's mission statement but hey it's a wild world now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 The west engages in farce - they'd like to accidentally on purpose kill Qaddafi while leaving plausible deniability or implausible deniability , as long as they have a fig leaf to hide behind- To me this violates our Constitution, the U.N.'s charter and NATO's mission statement but hey it's a wild world now. That's because you're a !@#$ing pinhead. Show me where accidentally-on-purpose-we-really-didn't-mean-it-oopsies-we-killed-Qadaffi is against the constitution, UN charter, or NATO's mission statement. You can't. Because you don't know ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I believe the goal is to let the civil war linger on for as long as it takes for Qadaffi to realize that he's lost "the legitimate right to rule" and decide all on his own to go into exile in Argentina. But really...if the goal isn't to depose Qadaffi...exactly what the !@#$ happens when the insurgents start to close on Tripoli? Do we withdraw air support, since we're not supporting the removal of Qadaffi? It really seems to me like the whole premise of this is "don't take sides, so we don't have to call it a war, while simultaneous bombing the **** out of one side, even though we're not taking sides, never mind that we only took action after Qadaffi was about to win...but we're completely neutral, honestly." In the name of humanitarianism, of course...even though the single most inhumane course of action is to prolong the war. The West is going to end up tearing the country apart simply because they don't want Qadaffi in power, yet don't have the stones to remove him. That's precisely what this is. Obviously the US and just about every other nation want's the guy gone. But, with all the revolts and protests going on, you can't take sides or else you'll be faced with.. why aren't you helping everyone else out. The US, Europe, NATA, etc. got lucky in this one because Qadaffi is batshit crazy and started spouting off about genocide-type actions. So, it was easy to go in under a Kosova-type premise and do something. We don't have to go into Bahrain and Syria and everywhere else because those guys aren't threatening to kill everyone (although that's not saying they won't). Not to mention, the last thing we need to do is start going into this or any muslim country and start asserting ourselves into their revolutions. Again, Qadaffi made this one a relatively easy call. IMO, Obama and NATO are placing a huge bet. That if they do a few targeted air strikes, they can stop Qadaffi's army enough for the rebels to take control. If it works, great, and all breath a sigh of relief. They got rid of the guy with minimal effort and cost. If it doesn't and Qadaffi's forces regroup and start kicking the rebels asses... then it'll turn into a huge cluster!@#$. I reckon we'll know in a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 That's because you're a !@#$ing pinhead. Show me where accidentally-on-purpose-we-really-didn't-mean-it-oopsies-we-killed-Qadaffi is against the constitution, UN charter, or NATO's mission statement. You can't. Because you don't know ****. Tom is this as accurate as your Japan has no Unions Statement, you unpleasant corpulent trouser fondler. A Constitutional Lawyer and later President said "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" maybe he was thinking of the war power Clause " [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War" or maybe he was thinking of The war powers resolution "© 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." NATO Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security . Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. self-defence Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. "The United Nations Charter strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented, but rules out interference in internal affairs of member states. The pretext cited in this case was the protection of defenseless civilians, but it is clear that the rebels constitute an armed military force in their own right. Since no state can be an aggressor on its own territory, the Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts