DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Ahhh well; there you have the definition of "easy come, easy go", it's the "American" way"... Some shore time in Italy to "reload", not bad all around... Use bullets, not bodies ---General Ellis W. Williamson Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) The Chinese position is directly contrary to the U.N. Charter. The Chinese position was to abstain from a vote. As to everyone else, well, I guess the thought of a million Libyan refugees flooding the Mediterranean made this an international affair. I'm not shedding any tears for Gaddafi's downfall, and I doubt very many Libyans will either. If the Charter is interpreted as you seem to think, we might as well fold the damned thing up. If governments have absolute license to do anything they bloody well please to their own populations, then we've basically returned to the pre-Atlantic Charter days. Edited March 21, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
jbg Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) If the Charter is interpreted as you seem to think, we might as well fold the damned thing up. If governments have absolute license to do anything they bloody well please to their own populations, then we've basically returned to the pre-Atlantic Charter days. My position is that the U.N. Charter on Human Rights is enforceable. I have a possible problem with its likely selective use against democracies for their imperfections, while brutal dictatorships of course are indifferent to the condemnatory resolutions.And yes, I think we should fold the U.N. up but that's a topic for another day. Edited March 21, 2011 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 The thing is there are other countries that are in turmoil as well, what makes Qaddafi so special? Yemen Bahrain Egypt Tunisia Quote
GWiz Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 The thing is there are other countries that are in turmoil as well, what makes Qaddafi so special? Yemen Bahrain Egypt Tunisia He's showing the others the way to NOT lose power... He's already won if it's turning relatively peaceful "protesters" into radical revolutionaries throughout the region... He's already won if it's causing the Arab League to condem aspects of "western aggression"... He's already won if it makes other dictators more ruthless in putting down revolts in their nations... He's already won if "western nations" are divided over what the "western powers" should or shouldn't do in regards to intervening... He's already won if the rebellion fractures along tribal lines in Libya... And POWER is what everything is about... In short, Ghaddafi has already won his battle against the "west" once again, even if he and everyone else in his family and regime are killed, Ghaddafi will have already won... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 The thing is there are other countries that are in turmoil as well, what makes Qaddafi so special? Yemen Bahrain Egypt Tunisia None of these countries pose the immediate refugee crisis that would occur if we let Gaddafi bomb the crap out of his own people. There are very real fears of tens of thousands of Libyans fleeing Libya. They've already been trying to get into Egypt. Quote
August1991 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 China and Russia agreeing to "abstain" from using their veto is one other "interesting", but not necessarily significant, aspect in this whole matter... I agree that this is the key "interesting" aspect to this military strike.All things considered, this is a NATO mission. IOW, NATO now acts as a check on US military power. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 I agree that this is the key "interesting" aspect to this military strike. All things considered, this is a NATO mission. IOW, NATO now acts as a check on US military power. How so? NATO could not have implemented the current Libyan framework without US military power. Such power is referred to with euphemisms like "unique capabilities" and "support". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 I agree that this is the key "interesting" aspect to this military strike. An interesting aspect? Can you imagine even ten years ago China sitting on its hands during a Security Council vote to go after a sovereign state out to quell an internal rebellion? I do note that Russia has had something of a change of heart, or rather, sat on its hands too, and now wants to get back on the fence. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 He's showing the others the way to NOT lose power... He's already won if it's turning relatively peaceful "protesters" into radical revolutionaries throughout the region... He's already won if it's causing the Arab League to condem aspects of "western aggression"... He's already won if it makes other dictators more ruthless in putting down revolts in their nations... He's already won if "western nations" are divided over what the "western powers" should or shouldn't do in regards to intervening... He's already won if the rebellion fractures along tribal lines in Libya... And POWER is what everything is about... In short, Ghaddafi has already won his battle against the "west" once again, even if he and everyone else in his family and regime are killed, Ghaddafi will have already won... It was a loosing situation from day 1. I was against going in to Libya. I mean the west has done enough to get Qaddafi to the point he is today? Kind of like Iraq, kind of like Afghanistan, kind of like everywhere the west is meddling. This may sound callous, but is it really our fight? If it's a civil war, let them fight it out for themselves? We've seen Egyptians shot in the streets, we've seen it in Bahrain, in Yemen, .... but we only chose to go into Libya because of the same thing? Come on this does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Canada needs to stay the hell out of this, but here we are sending in a small group of aircraft to the theater. We don't benefit from this at all. We need to let Libya figure out Libya's problems. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 It was a loosing situation from day 1. I was against going in to Libya. I mean the west has done enough to get Qaddafi to the point he is today? Kind of like Iraq, kind of like Afghanistan, kind of like everywhere the west is meddling. As I recall much of the West despised Gaddafi's regime, and Reagan even tried to snuff the guy out. The love affair is a rather recent event. I could hardly call what went on prior to that support for Gaddafi. This may sound callous, but is it really our fight? If it's a civil war, let them fight it out for themselves? We've seen Egyptians shot in the streets, we've seen it in Bahrain, in Yemen, .... but we only chose to go into Libya because of the same thing? Come on this does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Canada needs to stay the hell out of this, but here we are sending in a small group of aircraft to the theater. We don't benefit from this at all. We need to let Libya figure out Libya's problems. The problem is that Libya wasn't figuring out Libya's problems. Libya was being crushed by Gaddafi. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 As I recall much of the West despised Gaddafi's regime, and Reagan even tried to snuff the guy out. The love affair is a rather recent event. I could hardly call what went on prior to that support for Gaddafi. The problem is that Libya wasn't figuring out Libya's problems. Libya was being crushed by Gaddafi. And we have those kind of leaders all over the world. What makes him so special? I am failing to see the point. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 And we have those kind of leaders all over the world. What makes him so special? I am failing to see the point. Opportunity. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Opportunity. Indeed...never waste a good crisis! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 The Arab League has no credibility, it asked someone to do what should be their responsibility, then bitch about how it is done. All the while one of its members is actively using violence to help suppress dissent in another member. The situation in Libya has little in common with Egypt. Unlike Libya, the Egyptian army refused to take part in suppressing its own people. The West also has unfinished business with Moe. He has run training camps for and supplied dozens of terrorist organizations throughout the world including the IRA. He has also been responsible for the bombing of trains, night clubs and at least two civil airliners. This uprising has actually given the West a good opportunity to finally settle with him. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 And we have those kind of leaders all over the world. What makes him so special? I am failing to see the point. As much as anything the fear that the neighboring Mediterranean countries will be flooded with refugees. They've already been crossing the border into Egypt. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 The Arab League has no credibility, it asked someone to do what should be their responsibility, then bitch about how it is done. I think you'll find this pretty typical. The League wants Gaddafi gone as much as anybody, but, for political reasons, it can't be seen to be too cozy with the NATO, so this is what I'd call token resistance. Russia is doing much the same. I'm surprised that China hasn't had a public change of heart. Quote
xul Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 How so? NATO could not have implemented the current Libyan framework without US military power. Such power is referred to with euphemisms like "unique capabilities" and "support". It's ture. Without Uncle Sam's "unique capabilites and support", the satellite network or something, a French aircraft may be still functional----I mean it can still drop bombs like Gadhafi's, but its pilot may not be aware what he is bombing, just like Gadhafi's.... Quote
xul Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 I think you'll find this pretty typical. The League wants Gaddafi gone as much as anybody, but, for political reasons, it can't be seen to be too cozy with the NATO, so this is what I'd call token resistance. Russia is doing much the same. I'm surprised that China hasn't had a public change of heart. I agree with you. But I think the French overdone air-show may have already done some political damage on what the west wants to achieve in the region. The circumstance today is very different from the old colonial time. Nowadays without some sort of political achievement, no one can simplely dig oil from Libya or Iraq with a favourable price. Quote
August1991 Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 How so? NATO could not have implemented the current Libyan framework without US military power. Such power is referred to with euphemisms like "unique capabilities" and "support".I meant B_C that excepting perhaps a direct attack on its own territory, the US governemnt will seek at least NATO approval for any military mission.The US Congress and the Supreme Court are a counterbalance to the President. Similarly, NATO is a check on US military power. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I meant B_C that excepting perhaps a direct attack on its own territory, the US governemnt will seek at least NATO approval for any military mission. No, this is not the case. The US provides for assets that do chop to NATO command, but also maintains separate capabilities and missions not under NATO control. For instance, CENTCOM does not seek NATO approval for many routine missions. USN and USAF missions are conducted out of NATO control around the world. US Army operations in S. Korea do not chop to NATO. US forces in Afghanistan do not all answer to NATO, nor does the CIA. You get the picture. The US Congress and the Supreme Court are a counterbalance to the President. Similarly, NATO is a check on US military power. NATO is too reliant on the USA's "unique capabilities" for this to be true. NATO is a treaty partnership when like interests are at stake (e.g. Kosovo); it is not a check when interests are not so aligned (e.g. Iraq 2003). Frankly, if it weren't for the positive political considerations, NATO can often be a bigger limitation and pain in the ass than it's worth for US operations and "packages". Edited March 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 I agree with you. But I think the French overdone air-show may have already done some political damage on what the west wants to achieve in the region. The circumstance today is very different from the old colonial time. Nowadays without some sort of political achievement, no one can simplely dig oil from Libya or Iraq with a favourable price. Perhaps the French haven't forgotten UTA 772. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
GWiz Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 How so? NATO could not have implemented the current Libyan framework without US military power. Such power is referred to with euphemisms like "unique capabilities" and "support". I hear and see that the US is very anxious to "hand off" it's "command and control" of the Libyan mission and that all the "backs" to hand it off to don't want the ball and are running away in different directions, including NATO itself... Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 I hear and see that the US is very anxious to "hand off" it's "command and control" of the Libyan mission and that all the "backs" to hand it off to don't want the ball and are running away in different directions, including NATO itself... The Americans have already done the hard work of defense suppression and BDA...and will still have to baby sit NATO members as needed....as always. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 22, 2011 Report Posted March 22, 2011 The Americans have already done the hard work of defense suppression and BDA...and will still have to baby sit NATO members as needed....as always. Awww, poor USA, nobody wants to play nicey, nicey with you anymore so you're gonna cry and pout about it... As always... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.