|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2011 : 09:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So right now we have UN approval to provide a no-fly zone to protect civilians. Russia already thinks we are violating our UN authorization by our determining the outcome of a civil war by attacking Mommar forces directly. |
Directly attacking Kadaffi's ground forces is probably overstepping the mandate, I couldn't tell for sure because I haven't read the actual UN Resolution. China has a record of protesting against UN involvment in countries' internal conflicts, but I don't recall hearing anything from them yet which makes me wonder about the Russia's motivation.
But my question is what is the UN going to approve if and when al-Qaeda and the Muslium brotherhood and their supporters come in to fill the vacuum left by Mommar, just let it naturally unfold or approve boots on the ground to go in and battle al-Qaeda? |
I believe your question is motivated by paranoia regarding al-Quaida's involvement, and don't find much merit to it.
| And if so who's boots are you sending? |
Under this banner we have many more countries to go out and attack if protecting citizens from their dictator leaders is the mission here in Libya. And if you feel so strongly about going in there then let's see some Swedish forces involved as well.
|
Sweden is already committing resources to humanitarian help in the region. If we need to send in armed troops to protect the population, then we should pull them from Afghanistan where they shouldn't have been in the first place: That's an American FUBAR, and USA's responsibility to fix. Not Sweden's. Swedish politicians were considering sending fighter aircrafts to Libya to help keeping the No-Fly-Zone, but never got any requests from UN regarding air support.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 12:55:52 [Permalink]
|
There a couple of corrections needed here:
1. In terms of the UN resolution, Russia and China abstained from voting. So they did not endorse the action but neither did they protest it
2. Qaddafi has been bringing up the issue of al qaeda in Libya in hopes that the West will stop helping the rebels.
3. The threat of al qaeda to the US is over-hyped by certain people. Their actions and terrorist attempts have been amateurish and usually performed by individuals rather than groups. They shouldn't be ignored of course. Even if al qaeda is in Libya, they don't have the organization or cultural history with Libya to be a strong influence.
In my opinion, there are advantages for the US to be joining other countries in this action. It helps for the US to be seen as working with other countries rather than being an obnoxious lone ranger. there are disadvantages of course as outlined by others here. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 13:15:35 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| Directly attacking Kadaffi's ground forces is probably overstepping the mandate, I couldn't tell for sure because I haven't read the actual UN Resolution. |
From everything the Russians and I have read the UN has authorized a no-fly zone for the protection of civilians. Anything other than enforcing the no fly is a violation of the mandate. Yet Obama keeps insisting that Mommar must go? This was not part of the UN mandate and any action intended on influencing the outcome rather than just to protect civlians is a violation and could be considered a war crime. No?
| China has a record of protesting against UN involvment in countries' internal conflicts, but I don't recall hearing anything from them yet which makes me wonder about the Russia's motivation. |
Obviously Russia's motivation is making sure international law is obeyed and right now they are concerned that it is not. I am starting to wonder myself.
| I believe your question is motivated by paranoia regarding al-Quaida's involvement, and don't find much merit to it. |
You find it paranoia that al-Qaeda is going to interject themselves into this conflict? Where have you been for the last 15 years?
| Sweden is already committing resources to humanitarian help in the region. |
Like what?
| If we need to send in armed troops to protect the population, then we should pull them from Afghanistan where they shouldn't have been in the first place: |
What about protection of the Afghan civilians who your troops just left behind?
| That's an American FUBAR, and USA's responsibility to fix. Not Sweden's. |
BS! Afghanistain was a FUBAR long before the USA ever got there. Rightly or wrongly we have just taken it up on ourselves to try and help the Afghan people fix their FUBAR.
| Swedish politicians were considering sending fighter aircrafts to Libya to help keeping the No-Fly-Zone, but never got any requests from UN regarding air support. |
I wonder why they were not asked?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 13:31:49 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by alienist |
There a couple of corrections needed here:
1. In terms of the UN resolution, Russia and China abstained from voting. So they did not endorse the action but neither did they protest it |
Russia is protesting now.
| 2. Qaddafi has been bringing up the issue of al qaeda in Libya in hopes that the West will stop helping the rebels. |
I am sure he would say that whether it is true or not.
| 3. The threat of al qaeda to the US is over-hyped by certain people. Their actions and terrorist attempts have been amateurish and usually performed by individuals rather than groups. |
Care to say that to the face of the relatives of the 3000 people who died on 9/11 at the hands of al-Qaeda? Don't confuse prevented attacks with over-hyped.
| They shouldn't be ignored of course. Even if al qaeda is in Libya, they don't have the organization or cultural history with Libya to be a strong influence. |
So now we have the word of one backwoods internet forum poster against the word of one international terrorist.
| In my opinion, there are advantages for the US to be joining other countries in this action. It helps for the US to be seen as working with other countries rather than being an obnoxious lone ranger. there are disadvantages of course as outlined by others here. |
So what country are we headed to next to protect the civilians from their dictator leaders? There are a lot of them out there you know. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 15:06:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I think you agree though that we have to assume that al-Qaeda is going to be a player in this game on some level when you say this:| Well, we have no reason to doubt that, considering (as you've noted) that they try to get their fingers in all sorts of pies. |
|
Al Qaeda would be involved whether or not the US is. Actual Libyan opposition fighters far out-number Al Qaeda members in Libya. So if we're "providing cover" for Al Qaeda, it's minimal, at worse. And if our intelligence agencies think they're enough of a threat, then they're most-likely being shadowed right now by American agents also posing as Libyan opposition fighters.| Because Obama is responsible for America and our solders who we send in harms way, Not the UN, NATO or the Arab League. |
But the US isn't solely responsible for the no-fly zone and all of its consequences. If the no-fly zone is what's "providing cover" for Al Qaeda, then it's really on the UN, NATO and the Arab League. Yes, what happens to US troops is Obama's responsibility, but if Libya turns into a hot-bed of active terrorists, we can all blame the UN.| If someone bad, such as al-Qaeda, is there waiting to fill the vacuum it's bad news for us. |
Why for us, specifically? |
Because we help put them in there... |
Nonononono. We can assume Al Qaeda has been trying to exploit the civil strife in Libya since the moment the eastern half of the country decided to not bow to Gahdaffi any more. If the no-fly zone helps Al Qaeda, they'll be plenty of countries taking some share of the blame.| No, given the other countries involved, we will have other choices than that, including (for once) telling other people that they need to clean up the mess. Maybe they'll be better at it than we've been. |
You really think that will happen? I mean you just said this:| This contrasts very highly with Bush II's invasion of Iraq, in which the US was going, "come on, everybody!" and our long-time allies sent little more than token support, and teensy-tiny countries thought they were doing us favors by sending in 17 shipping clerks. |
It's early but fear is that we are going to get sucked into another ground war to defeat evil forces who are filling the vacuum left by Mommar and it will be US personal going in to try and clean up the mess left in the vacuum of the fallen regime. |
No, it's not on us this time. The US went in practically alone in Iraq II, which is why we have an obligation to clean up the mess. In Libya, the US was asked to participate. If it gets really messy, we should, as a nation, say, "we didn't sign up for that, this time. Bye!" Especially since we don't seem to be very good at cleaning up messes, anyway.| So once through the tit for tat we see that you and I are just about the only ones on this thread, that I can tell, who think we are making a mistake and should not be there in Libya with our military. |
Perhaps. I'm less insistent upon a need for the President to get pre-approval. In this particular case, I'm critical because there was a long lead-up to a seemingly inevitable no-fly zone. So the President had plenty of time to get Congress involved even before the UN passed its resolution. Similarly, there was plenty of time for Congress to have written up, debated and passed a law which basically could have said, "if the UN calls for a no-fly zone over Libya, here is a description of what sort of military powers we will authorize for the President..." Such a resolution doesn't have to come only after a President requests it, so Congress bears as much of the blame for not pre-approving the action as the President. In this particular case.
In general, however, I'm in favor of leaving the WPR as it is. If Canada invades Wisconsin tomorrow, I don't want the President to have to wait for Congressional approval before bombing the snot out of their military igloos and massive kayak fleet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 19:48:50 [Permalink]
|
Care to say that to the face of the relatives of the 3000 people who died on 9/11 at the hands of al-Qaeda? Don't confuse prevented attacks with over-hyped.
I should have said 9 1/2 years. Since that attack, Al qaeda strength has been diminished because actions by the US, European and some middle Eastern countries. Of course the 9/11 happened under W's watch and that time his administration was all about "Anything But Clinton" policy. Because of this attitude, I have always wondered if W missed the warning signs. that is just speculation on my part
However, it does remind me that if Gore had been president, we would not be in Iraq. We also would not have such a huge deficit. Because W was all about cutting taxes for his rich friends. He also had to cut taxes so he can prove he was better than his father.
I also blame congress for not stopping the Iraq war. If they weren't so afraid of appearing weak after the 9/11 attacks, they might have stopped the Bush/cheney cabal.
You criticize Obama, but no president has ever been as bad and unthinking as Bush Jr.
_________________________________________________________________
So now we have the word of one backwoods internet forum poster against the word of one international terrorist.
Hmmm I think I hit a nerve....
In my opinion, there are advantages for the US to be joining other countries in this action. It helps for the US to be seen as working with other countries rather than being an obnoxious lone ranger. there are disadvantages of course as outlined by others here. So what country are we headed to next to protect the civilians from their dictator leaders? There are a lot of them out there you know.
I did say there all disadvantages to involving the US with Libya. I get tired of the black and white thinking of saying an action is all bad or all good
I will try to get more info on Al Qaeda from other sources |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 07:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
|
| I should have said 9 1/2 years. Since that attack, Al qaeda strength has been diminished because actions by the US, European and some middle Eastern countries. |
Diminished does not mean in one iota that the fight is anywhere close to being over. God forbid the day any one of these Muslim extremist groups, whether it be al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood or any of the others, get their hands on some kind of nuclear device, or any other WMD up to and including biological agents and then use it on a heavy populated area. It took 19 hijackers to pull off 9/11. It would probably take far less than that to use some sort of WMD on a civilian population. Again, this fight is far from over and saying anything otherwise is just pure ignorance.
| Of course the 9/11 happened under W's watch and that time his administration was all about "Anything But Clinton" policy. Because of this attitude, I have always wondered if W missed the warning signs. that is just speculation on my part |
The gulf oil spill happened on BO's watch so is he solely responsible for that? How long are you people going to justify the actions of the sitting president by pointing to the former one? Those are grade school actions. BO is president in the here and now.
| However, it does remind me that if Gore had been president, we would not be in Iraq. We also would not have such a huge deficit. Because W was all about cutting taxes for his rich friends. He also had to cut taxes so he can prove he was better than his father. |
Get over it. It's all ancient history. Now, today, we have Obama, who has kept us in Iraq, he is keeping club gitmo open, he has ramped up the fight in Afghanistan and now he is opening up a new war front in Libya. Why worry about the old war hawk when we have a new war hawk running the show as we speak?
My neighbor was/is a big GWB hater. She even had a bumper sticker on her car that said "Loving thy enemy does not imply dropping bombs on them" for the gulf war. We were talking the other day at the end of the driveway and I could tell if was very difficult and uncomfortable for her to defend the military action in Libya when it was her man now in charge. The irony was that I could see the bumper sticker on her car sitting in the garage while she was uncomfortably justify the current bombing to me.
And BTW, president BO extended those Bush tax cuts so either they are not as bad as you say they are or Obama is as bad as you say Bush is.
| I also blame congress for not stopping the Iraq war. If they weren't so afraid of appearing weak after the 9/11 attacks, they might have stopped the Bush/cheney cabal. |
I didn't and still don't have a problem with us taking out the brutal dictator Saddam for many the same reason we are in Libya. He was brutal to no ends with his own people and there was an opposition group just begging for assist to topple the dictator. Where I think we made our serious mistake was sticking around and trying to shape and mold the aftermath in our image. In other words nation building. I have no problem with us pounding the Taliban and al-Qadeda back to the stone ages in Afghanistan. Again I think our serious mistake there is also us sticking around and trying to nation build in our own image. That is my fear in Libya. We are going to get sucked into a ground war and will be in much the same situation as Iraq and Afghanistan.
| You criticize Obama, but no president has ever been as bad and unthinking as Bush Jr. |
The man has not been president for over two years now. Its time to stop justify and rationalizing the sitting president by saying Bush did this and Bush said that. I am starting to think you are just a one trick pony. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 08:05:19 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Al Qaeda would be involved whether or not the US is. Actual Libyan opposition fighters far out-number Al Qaeda members in Libya. So if we're "providing cover" for Al Qaeda, it's minimal, at worse. And if our intelligence agencies think they're enough of a threat, then they're most-likely being shadowed right now by American agents also posing as Libyan opposition fighters. |
Tit for tat. My point, sitting here today, is that we have already committed to assisting the rebels militarily, even though that is not the UN mandate, and just yesterday when asked by the media, Secretary of State Clinton said they were still, as we speak, trying to figure out exactly who the rebels were. So we have committed militarily and we don't even know who the rebels are yet? That's just great. That is classic putting the cart before the horse.
And then just today on the radio they are saying Obama has not ruled out giving weapons to the rebels. All of this with Clinton in the back drop acknowledging that at this point we don't even know who the rebels are. Not to mention that the UN said we could provide a no-fly zone and, to my knowledge,nothing about arming anyone.
| But the US isn't solely responsible for the no-fly zone and all of its consequences. If the no-fly zone is what's "providing cover" for Al Qaeda, then it's really on the UN, NATO and the Arab League. Yes, what happens to US troops is Obama's responsibility, but if Libya turns into a hot-bed of active terrorists, we can all blame the UN. |
So if this all goes to hell in a hand basket we can just blame the UN? That and 50 cents will get us a hot cup of soup. Nor will blaming the UN stop al-Qadea from wanting to attack and punish us as the infidel invaders.
| Nonononono. We can assume Al Qaeda has been trying to exploit the civil strife in Libya since the moment the eastern half of the country decided to not bow to Gahdaffi any more. If the no-fly zone helps Al Qaeda, they'll be plenty of countries taking some share of the blame. |
It's almost as if you are more concerned about us having someone else to blame than the very real potential of this spiraling into hell in a hand basket
| No, it's not on us this time. The US went in practically alone in Iraq II, which is why we have an obligation to clean up the mess. In Libya, the US was asked to participate. If it gets really messy, we should, as a nation, say, "we didn't sign up for that, this time. Bye!" Especially since we don't seem to be very good at cleaning up messes, anyway. |
But that's my point. What nation is good at getting involved in and cleaning up other nation's civil wars, Sweden? Civil wars are already messy enough without foreigners coming in and getting their sticky hands involved.
| Perhaps. I'm less insistent upon a need for the President to get pre-approval. In this particular case, I'm critical because there was a long lead-up to a seemingly inevitable no-fly zone. |
Well that and you yourself said we should not be there.
| So the President had plenty of time to get Congress involved even before the UN passed its resolution. Similarly, there was plenty of time for Congress to have written up, debated and passed a law which basically could have said, "if the UN calls for a no-fly zone over Libya, here is a description of what sort of military powers we will authorize for the President..." Such a resolution doesn't have to come only after a President requests it, so Congress bears as much of the blame for not pre-approving the action as the President. In this particular case. |
Yeah maybe.
| In general, however, I'm in favor of leaving the WPR as it is. If Canada invades Wisconsin tomorrow, I don't want the President to have to wait for Congressional approval before bombing the snot out of their military igloos and massive kayak fleet. |
Yeah, I can see your point there. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 09:32:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It is encouraging to see an American leader who isn't itching on the trigger finger, but can show restraint. While at the same time be a responsible member of the world community.
|
So lets review:
Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
They stressed that the objective was solely to protect civilians from further harm.
Lebanon’s speaker stressed that the text would not result in the occupation of “one inch” of Libyan territory by foreign forces.
The representative of the United States said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help. The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians.
The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered
China and Russia are justified because right now there are many unanswered questions. One of them being, who are these rebels?
The delegations of India, Germany and Brazil, having also abstained, equally stressed the need for peaceful resolution of the conflict and warned against unintended consequences of armed intervention.
As well they should. My fear is this escalating to the point of us getting into yet another gorilla war.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
I cannot find anywhere where it gives authorization to start sending in arms to the rebels who we don't even know. But yet BO has not ruled this out:
Washington, Mar 30 (bdnews24.com/reuters)- US President Barack Obama has said he does not rule out arming the rebels in Libya seeking to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.
http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=191421&cid=46
He says that AFTER Hillary says this:
We do not have any information about specific individuals from any organization that are part of this. But of course, we are still getting to know the people [rebels]
http://www.economiccollapse.net/who-are-the-rebels-in-libya-hillary-clinton-has-no-idea
So on March 30th BO says we may arm the rebels, even though yesterday, the 29th, his Secretary of state acknowledged that we don't even know who they are?!?!?!?!?!?!
But not only would arming strangers be foolish, most think it would also be a violation of the UN mandate.
The US is likely to be in breach of the UN security council's arms embargo on Libya if it sends weapons to the rebels, experts in international law have warned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/arming-libya-rebels-america-warned
MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday said Moscow believed that foreign powers did not have the right to arm Libyan rebels under the mandate approved by the UN Security Council.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=45232
So BO says we will leave Iraq and we do not.
He says we close gitmo and we do not.
He ramps up the fight in Afghanistan.
He opens up a new war front in Libya.
He threatens to arm possible terrorists (he don't know who they are) in clear and direct violation of the UN mandate.
Now who gave this guy the Nobel Peace Prize?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 09:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Of course the 9/11 happened under W's watch and that time his administration was all about "Anything But Clinton" policy. Because of this attitude, I have always wondered if W missed the warning signs. that is just speculation on my part
|
The gulf oil spill happened on BO's watch so is he solely responsible for that? How long are you people going to justify the actions of the sitting president by pointing to the former one? Those are grade school actions. BO is president in the here and now.
|
If Bush ignored intelligence/warnings as listed here, then I am not sure how this is an apt comparison when you consider that Obama had no fore warnings on the oil spill to ignore.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Now, today, we have Obama, who has kept us in Iraq, he is keeping club gitmo open, he has ramped up the fight in Afghanistan and now he is opening up a new war front in Libya.
|
Don't forget an economy that was circling the drain, flushing 1/2 million jobs a month for several months. He does own those problems now and bears responsibility for resolving each. Since each of these were created under a republican administration I now have to wonder what there is about responsibility that republicans seem incapable of accepting.
As far as Libya is concerned as of right now our role is minimal, as has been described many times in this thread. I can honestly say I do not know how this is going to play out, but I am not going to allow fear to rule reason. "Opening up a new war front" reads too much like it came from Fox News. Just like Sarah stating that our efforts to date are costing $600 million a day. Her source must be the same one Bachman used a couple months ago on the cost of the India trip. Responsible people should at least try to get things right. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 03/30/2011 09:45:42 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 10:09:24 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by moakley |
| if Bush ignored intelligence/warnings as listed here, then I am not sure how this is an apt comparison when you consider that Obama had no fore warnings on the oil spill to ignore. |
It happened under his watch so it is his fault.
| Don't forget an economy that was circling the drain, flushing 1/2 million jobs a month for several months. He does own those problems now and bears responsibility for resolving each. Since each of these were created under a republican administration I now have to wonder what there is about responsibility that republicans seem incapable of accepting. |
Going off on a "I hate Bush" tangent that has nothing do with the thread, I see.
| As far as Libya is concerned as of right now our role is minimal, as has been described many times in this thread. I can honestly say I do not know how this is going to play out, but I am not going to allow fear to rule reason. |
Nor common sense, apparently.
| "Opening up a new war front" reads too much like it came from Fox News. |
As opposed to a "kinetic military action"?
| Just like Sarah stating that our efforts to date are costing $600 million a day. Her source must be the same one Bachman used a couple months ago on the cost of the India trip. Responsible people should at least try to get things right. |
What does that have at at to do with the fact that:
BO said we would leave Iraq and now he says we will not.
BO said we would close gitmo and now says we will not.
Bo ramps up the fight in Afghanistan
BO opening up a new war front in Libya and threatening to arm the unknown rebel force in violation of UN mandates.
Based on what should I believe BO when he says this "kinetic military action" will last just a few days and will go no further than a no-fly zone? He has lied before on his military promises, why should I believe him now? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 10:47:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Those are grade school actions. BO is president in the here and now. |
And republican politicians are doing everything they can to sabotage Obamas's administration. So much for grade school actions and higher moral ground. Repubs sticks to high heaven, and if there had been a God, I'm sure she would have smite them with fire and brimstone.
But I digress...
| Why worry about the old war hawk when we have a new war hawk running the show as we speak? |
You'd have a greater war-hawk on your hands with a Republican president.
| My neighbor was/is a big GWB hater. She even had a bumper sticker on her car that said "Loving thy enemy does not imply dropping bombs on them" for the gulf war. |
Awesome bumper sticker.
I carried around a bunch of these flags whenever I went outdoors, back when GWB was president.
| He was brutal to no ends with his own people and there was an opposition group just begging for assist to topple the dictator. Where I think we made our serious mistake was sticking around and trying to shape and mold the aftermath in our image. In other words nation building. |
According to the Geneva Convention, an invading force is obligated to maintain domestic security until such time that the local police force is capable of taking over. War-criminal Bush never did that to begin with, so having pulled out directly wouldn't have made him more criminal that he intended to be. On the positive side, American presence in Iraq probably did prevent the Iraqi religious factions from declaring outright civil war on each other. For now they seem to be satisfied with car bombs every now and then, and some very local ethnic cleansing.
I have no problem with us pounding the Taliban and al-Qadeda back to the stone ages in Afghanistan. |
Along with portions of the civilian populations, not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan as well. And some Americans wonder why they hate you.
Again I think our serious mistake there is also us sticking around and trying to nation build in our own image. |
Especially thumping bibles. But those instances were probably simply a breakdown in the chain of command.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/04/soldiers-hunt-for-jesus/ pay specific attention to the video clip in the link.
| That is my fear in Libya. We are going to get sucked into a ground war and will be in much the same situation as Iraq and Afghanistan. |
I honestly believe your fear is unwarranted. Only time will tell.
| Swedish politicians were considering sending fighter aircrafts to Libya to help keeping the No-Fly-Zone, but never got any requests from UN regarding air support. |
I wonder why they were not asked? |
Probably because Sweden has had a policy of only sending ground troops, strictly under UN flag, in supporting roles but never as active combat raiders.
But this seems like a ground-breaking moment. Swedish prime minister is actually proposing sending fighter aircrafts, and has a broad support among the rest of the parties in the Swedish parliament. Unlike in USA, the Swedish parliament needs to approve the proposition to send military aid outside the nation. They are going to put it up to a vote to send aircrafts if UN asks for it.
The Swedish humanitarian help you asked about earlier was doctors, staff, refugee organizers, medical equipments and medicine, tents and other stuff to help make the refugee-camps in and around Libya bearable.
So BO says we will leave Iraq and we do not.
He says we close gitmo and we do not.
He ramps up the fight in Afghanistan. |
These I agree are legitimate grievances.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/30/2011 10:50:44 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 12:13:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
And republican politicians are doing everything they can to sabotage Obamas's administration. So much for grade school actions and higher moral ground. Repubs sticks to high heaven, and if there had been a God, I'm sure she would have smite them with fire and brimstone.
But I digress...
You'd have a greater war-hawk on your hands with a Republican president. |
How could you possible know that? The President campaigns that he is a peace loving dove and that Bush is the second coming of Hitler. This perception sticks so much so that BO is given the Noble Peace Prize before he has even done anything. Yet we are still in Iraq, still have gitmo open, have ramped up the fight in Afghanistan, opened up a new war front in Libya and now we have the president of the US threatening to violate the UN mandate just because he says so.
| My neighbor was/is a big GWB hater. She even had a bumper sticker on her car that said "Loving thy enemy does not imply dropping bombs on them" for the gulf war. |
Awesome bumper sticker. |
Especial when the lady is now trying to defend the dropping of bombs. It was obviously a position she did not enjoy defending.
| According to the Geneva Convention, an invading force is obligated to maintain domestic security until such time that the local police force is capable of taking over. War-criminal Bush never did that to begin with, so having pulled out directly wouldn't have made him more criminal that he intended to be. |
So when are the Bush war criminal trials starting?
| On the positive side, American presence in Iraq probably did prevent the Iraqi religious factions from declaring outright civil war on each other. |
Without boots on the ground whats to stop the same thing from happening in Libya? Or are you gonna claim that launching tomahawk missiles and making bombing runs with fighter aircraft is a "military action" rather than invading forces, therefore any lack of security in the aftermath is not the fault of the UN?
The UN has now altered the results of the civil war by sticking their nose in it so therefor they now own the outcome as well. Of course its gonna be tough to provide security without boots on the ground so we have really hamstrung ourselves here. If we do not send boots in and a bloodbath takes place on either side it will be the UN's fault for altering the outcome of a civil war inside a sovereign nation and providing no security in the aftermath. If they do send in boots to control the aftermath of the bombing they are now in violation of the UN mandate.
| That is my fear in Libya. We are going to get sucked into a ground war and will be in much the same situation as Iraq and Afghanistan. |
I honestly believe your fear is unwarranted. Only time will tell. |
That's easy for you to say when no one from your country is in the mix.
| Probably because Sweden has had a policy of only sending ground troops, strictly under UN flag, in supporting roles but never as active combat raiders. |
I thought you said the Swedes had aircraft they were willing to send over?
| But this seems like a ground-breaking moment. Swedish prime minister is actually proposing sending fighter aircraft, and has a broad support among the rest of the parties in the Swedish parliament. Unlike in USA, the Swedish parliament needs to approve the proposition to send military aid outside the nation. They are going to put it up to a vote to send aircraft if UN asks for it. |
But why not ask for it in the first place?
| The Swedish humanitarian help you asked about earlier was doctors, staff, refugee organizers, medical equipments and medicine, tents and other stuff to help make the refugee-camps in and around Libya bearable. |
A noble action for sure.
So BO says we will leave Iraq and we do not.
He says we close gitmo and we do not.
He ramps up the fight in Afghanistan. |
These I agree are legitimate grievances. |
Than why would you say this about Obama:
| It is encouraging to see an American leader who isn't itching on the trigger finger, but can show restraint. While at the same time be a responsible member of the world community. |
And does it not concern you that the UN approved coalition is providing air cover and assistance to rebels who we don't even know who they are? For all we know we may end up with a ruling force in charge who is worse than what we had before the bombing campaign began. We might end up with a Taliban type leadership in Libya. Nobody knows at this point.
And are you concerned at all that Obama is at least talking about arming the unknown rebels? A clear UN mandate violation.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 14:58:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I cannot find anywhere where it gives authorization to start sending in arms to the rebels... |
I'd like to know where in the Constitution (or any other laws) it says that the President needs authorization from the UN (or anyone else) before shipping weapons to people in a foreign country. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 15:01:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| if Bush ignored intelligence/warnings as listed here, then I am not sure how this is an apt comparison when you consider that Obama had no fore warnings on the oil spill to ignore. |
It happened under his watch so it is his fault.
|
To that point perhaps, but since you can not show that he ignored warnings, nothing more.
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Don't forget an economy that was circling the drain, flushing 1/2 million jobs a month for several months. He does own those problems now and bears responsibility for resolving each. Since each of these were created under a republican administration I now have to wonder what there is about responsibility that republicans seem incapable of accepting. |
Going off on a "I hate Bush" tangent that has nothing do with the thread, I see.
|
Yes, I see. Your response is typical, a dodge, and ironically supports my point.
Originally posted by Bill scott
| As far as Libya is concerned as of right now our role is minimal, as has been described many times in this thread. I can honestly say I do not know how this is going to play out, but I am not going to allow fear to rule reason. |
Nor common sense, apparently.
|
That's just a silly response, Bill. You are now confusing fear with common sense. Which raises further doubts about your mental clarity and judgement.
BO said we would leave Iraq and now he says we will not.
|
So are you suggesting that we should have cut and run.
BO said we would close gitmo and now says we will not.
|
I seem to recall republicans being so sqeamish about all proposed solution that they were literally wetting themselves in defiance.
Bo ramps up the fight in Afghanistan
|
The previous thread that you were engaged included too much repetition of previous discuss points and in that thread clearly refuted points. Repetition may work with godbots when peddling bad ideas, but here it is just tedious.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bombs away
